Vijay Joshi vs M/s I.C. Computer System and Anr.

Present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.PC read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 01.8.2015, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.4-S/10 of 2015, affirming the judgment and order of conviction/sentence dated 16.12.2014 and 31.1.2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 2538-3 of 2014/12, whereby the petitioner accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant.

Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent No.1 (herein after referred to as the complainant) preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla stating therein that the petitioner-accused approached the respondent company for purchasing a Laptop Compaq Presario No. CQ42-463TU. The petitioner with a view to discharge his lawful liability qua the payment of aforesaid laptop, issued a cheque bearing No. 00844 (C-2) of Rs. 24,000/- drawn at ICICI Bank, Rampur Branch. However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque issued by the present petitioner-accused was dishonored on account of ''insufficient funds'' and accordingly, the complainant was compelled to get the legal notice issued advising the petitioner accused to make the payment good within the stipulated time. Since petitioner-accused failed to make payment good in terms of the legal notice, respondent-complainant was compelled to initiate the proceedings in the appropriate court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

Record further suggests that learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Court No. (II), Shimla H.P., taking cognizance of the averments contained in the criminal case instituted by complainant, put a notice of accusation to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record, found the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description already given supra.

Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC. before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla,HP, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 1.8.2015, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal petition, praying therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction.

This Court taking cognizance of averments contained in the criminal petition, vide order dated 05.10.2015, suspended the execution of sentence imposed by the learned trial Court during the pendency of the criminal revision petition.

Today, when the matter was listed before this Court, Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, representing the petitioner-accused stated that entire amount in terms of judgment passed by the learned trial Court stands deposited in the Registry of this Court and the same can be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. He also stated that in view of the aforesaid, this case can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663.

On the other hand, Mr. Rajan kahol, Advocate, representing respondent No.1-complainant, opposed the aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Kapoor and stated that instant case cannot be ordered to be compounded at this stage because petitioner accused stands convicted by the courts below. He further stated that complainant-Company was put to unnecessary harassment by the petitioner accused and for realization of amount, it was made to approach appropriate Court of law unnecessarily and as such, the complainant-company is required to be compensated adequately.

Consequently in view of the fact that entire cheque amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court stands deposited before the Registry of this court, this Court deems it fit to compound the present case in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu case supra subject to petitioners'' paying/depositing compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- in addition to the amount already deposited in the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below is quashed and set-aside and the petitioner accused is acquitted of the charges so framed against him. However, it is made clear that in case, compensation amount (Rs. 15,000/-) is not paid to the complainant within a period of three months, the petitioner accused shall render himself liable to face penal consequence as well as contempt of court. Needles to say, the complainant is at liberty to get the aforesaid amount released from the Registry of this Court on moving an appropriate application before the Registrar Judicial, who in turn shall release the amount within two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Copy dasti.