CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarwan Singh Lera vs Debonair Chits Private Limited and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 P&H CK 0232

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurdev Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138, 147
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12409 of 2011 and Criminal Revision No. 2038 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 386 words

Gurdev Singh, J.—Heard.

2.

The complaint-respondent No. 1 filed complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioner-accused. According to the complainant, for discharging the previous liability, the accused issued Cheque No. 792459 dated 18.9.1997 for Rs. 1,03,400/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Mathura Road, Faridabad, which on presentment to the banker of the accused was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in his account and he failed to pay that amount of the cheque in spite of the issuance of the statutory notice. The accused was convicted for that offence by JMIC, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 28.11.2001 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, and while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of one year was reduced to 09 months, vide judgment dated 17.9.2002. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present revision.

3.

In the course of proceedings, application was filed by the accused for permission to compound the offence on the ground that a compromise has already been effected between him and the complainant. As per the guidelines laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (2) RCR 851 the accused was directed to pay 15% of the cheque amount as costs. Keeping in view the financial position of the accused, he was directed to pay half of that amount and according to him he has deposited Rs. 15,000/- in the registry of this Court.

4.

Statement of the complainant has been recorded wherein he stated that he has already compounded the offence with the accused. As per Section 147 of that Act, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable. It is well settled that the offence can be compounded even in the revision. As a result of the composition, the accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Act. The fine, if already deposited, be refunded to him.

5.

Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.

6.

Revision is disposed of accordingly.