Kamal Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 09.11.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 2478 of 2021, Pradeep Rathore Vs. Kamal Singh Bisht by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital (for short “the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. Provisions have also been made for compensation and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 11.03.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2022, Kamal Singh Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of Additional District and Sessions (IInd), Nainital (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 09.11.2022, passed in the case has been upheld.

A joint compounding application has been filed alongwith the affidavits.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably; the revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663. Receipt No. 44 dated 14.05.2024 of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority has been tendered. Let it be placed on record.

The revisionist and the respondent no.2 are present in person before this Court duly identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the compromise.

The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2, he would submit that he has received the money and settled the dispute.

Since the offence has been compounded, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed; the impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

Compounding application stands disposed of, accordingly.