Nurata Ram vs UCO Bank

Sandeep Sharma, J

Cr.MP(M) No. 6 of 2021

By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying

criminal revision petition. Mr. Jitender Pal Ranote, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to the

application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the application is allowed.

Averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, clearly reveal that delay in maintaining the accompanying appeal is

neither intentional nor willful, rather same has occurred on account of circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and

as such, same deserves to be condoned.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is

condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Be registered.

Cr. Revision No. 5 of 2021

By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated

20.7.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Mandi, H.P., (Camp at Sarkaghat) in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2019, affirming

judgment/order of conviction and sentence dated 14.9.2018/12.4.2019, recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,

Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in case No. 66-III/2011, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having

committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and

to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant.

Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, against the petitioner-accused, alleging therein that the accused availed loan to the tune of Rs.

50,000/-, from it on 21.10.2010 and with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque dated 6.6.2011 for a sum of Rs. 52,600/- in favour of the

complainant, however fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on its presentation. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the

payment good within the stipulated period despite issuance of legal notice dated 17.6.2011, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate

proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed

offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above.

Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court

of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, H.P. (camp at Sarkaghat), which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.7.2019, as a

consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-

accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded

by the courts below.

Today, during the pendency of the case, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making this Court peruse communication

dated 28.12.2020 and 23.9.2019 (Annexures A1 and A2) contends that dispute inter-se parties stands settled under One Time Settlement Scheme

(OTS) and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, can proceed to compound the offence.

Mr. Jitender Pal Ranote, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on instructions, fairly submits that petitioner as well as the

respondent-bank have entered into compromise under the One Time Settlement scheme, whereby petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 14,560/- as full and

final settlement and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding the offence can be accepted. Mr. Ranote, states that he has

definite instructions to state on behalf of the respondent-Bank that respondent Bank shall have no objection in case judgment of conviction and

sentence recorded by the courts below are quashed and set- aside and petitioner is acquitted of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the

Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused communications as referred herein above, this Court finds that after passing of judgment

of conviction and sentence, petitioner-accused aproched the respondent Bank under one time settlement scheme, whereby both the parties agreed to

resolve dispute inter-se them for a sum of Rs. 14560/-. Communication dated 23.12.2020, placed on record, clearly reveals that sum of Rs. 14560/-

stands deposited with the bank, as a consequence of which, loan account bearing 21400610000885 has been ordered to be closed on 23.9.2019 under

the OTS scheme. Since dispute inter-se parties has been settled amicably and sum of Rs. 14560/- agreed to be paid by the petitioner under the OTS

Scheme stands received by the Bank, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of

offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case (supra), has categorically held that

court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts

below.

Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments passed by the courts below are quashed

and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Since petitioner is behind bars,

release warrants be prepared and sent through email/fax to the quarter concerned forthwith. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also pending

applications, if any.

Copy dasti.