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
26 paragraphs · 440 wordsSANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Petitioner impugns order dated 20.09.2018 of the appellate court whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order on conviction dated
17.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 01.08.2017 has been dismissed.
Petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to four months imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
Parties have settled their disputes and settlement agreement dated 27.09.2018 has been executed. Petitioner was convicted in two complaints filed
by the respondent both under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Subject complaint pertains to a cheque in the sum of Rs.30,000/-.
Petitioner had agreed to pay total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.2. Rs.50,000/- was paid on 27.09.2018 and the balance amount of
Rs.50,000/- has been paid today by way of Demand Draft No.543447 dated 11.10.2018 drawn on ICICI Bank.
On 04.10.2018, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to deposit cost equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount with Delhi State Legal Services
Authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5 SCC 663. Petitioner has produced
receipt of deposit of sum of Rs.4,500/- as costs with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount.
Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person. He submits that he has received the entire amount and has no objection to the compounding of the
subject offence.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has paid the entire settlement amount and also cost in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the subject offence is compounded. Petitioner is acquitted of the said offence.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Since the petitioner has been acquitted, petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
It is observed that by order dated 04.10.2018, petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that personal bond and the surety bond were furnished to the Superintendent jail on 08.10.2018,
however, till date petitioner has not been released.
Superintendent Jail shall furnish a report as to why the petitioner was not released after furnishing the personal bond and surety bond, in terms of
order dated 04.10.2018.
List on 22.10.2018, for considering the report of the Superintendent Jail.
Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.