AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 581 wordsSureshwar Thakur, J
The instant petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby he affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.2, Solan, District Solan, H.P. of 06/10.3.2017, pronounced in Criminal complaint No. 14/3 of 2015, convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioner, for, his committing offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, the authorized official of the respondent/complainant bank, has, in his statement on oath duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, made a disclosure that he has instructions that in case this Court orders for a sum of Rs. 73,529/-/- lying deposited before the learned Magistrate concerned, being ordered to be released in favour of the complainant/respondent bank, thereupon he holds instructions, of, this Court proceeding to accept the instant criminal revision. Moreover, he has also stated on oath, that thereupon the revisionist/accused be acquitted of the charge.
Consequently, accepting the statement on oath of the authorized official of the respondent/complainant bank, the offence constituted by the dishonour of Negotiable Instrument, is ordered to be compounded. In sequel, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgments are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner/accused stands acquitted of the charge. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, in his statement, without oath, duly reduced into writing and signature by him, qua a sum of Rs. 73,529/-/-, lying deposited before the learned trial Court, being ordered by the learned trial Court to be released in favour of the complainant/respondent bank, thereupon the learned trial Court shall order for its release vis-à-vis the complainant/respondent bank, by directing it being remitting in its bank account. However, given the petitioner herein belatedly concerting to seek composition of the offence constituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, necessitates, fastening/levying by this Court, upon, the petitioner/accused, a penalty quantified at 15% of the amount comprised in the dishonoured negotiable instrument. Accordingly, this order shall take effect only on the petitioner/ accused, depositing, within eight weeks from today 15% of the cheque amount before the State Legal Services Authority.
In view of the above directions, the instant petition as well as all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
4th January, 2018 (Sureshwar Thakur),
(kck) Judge.
Cr. Revision No. 306 of 2017
Statement of K.C. Sharma, presently working as Managing Director, Baghat Urban, Cooperative Bank, Branch Office Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
On oath
4th January 2018
Stated that I have instructions to submit before this Court that in case a sum of Rs. 73,529/-, lying deposited before the learned Magistrate concerned, is ordered to be released vis-à-vis the respondent/complainant bank, thereupon the respondent/ complainant bank has no objection in case the instant petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence pronounced upon the accused is quashed and set aside. Also, the offences constituted under the Negotiable Instruments Act be ordered to be quashed and set aside.
RO&AC (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge.
4th January, 2018.
Cr. Revision No. 306 of 2017
Statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner/accused.
On oath
4th January, 2018
Stated that I have heard the statement of the authorized official of the respondent/complainant Bank. I do not have any objection in case this Court orders for a sum of Rs. 73,529/-/- lying deposited before the learned Magistrate concerned, is ordered to be released in favour of complainant/respondent bank.