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
4 paragraphs · 204 wordsUmesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The revisionist was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,60,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (complainant) stated that the complainant has compounded the offence against the accused-revisionist.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides that the offences punishable under the said Act are compoundable. It is also the statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the respondent has received Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash and the balance of Rs. 30,000/- is deposited by the revisionist before the trial court, which amount be directed to be released in favour of respondent no. 2. In view of such statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Criminal Revision is allowed and as a consequence thereof, the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist is set aside.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has no objection to CRMA No. 714 of 2014. It is, therefore, directed that Rs. 1,30,000/-, which is deposited by the revisionist in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, be released in favour of respondent no. 2.
This disposes of the Criminal Revision.