High CourtsSingle Bench

Vinod Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 UK CK 0168

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 · Limitation Act, 1963 & mdash; Section 5
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Delay Condonation Application No. 01 Of 2023, Criminal Revision No. 593 Of 2023
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

14 paragraphs · 366 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Revisionist-accused Vinod Prasad was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs. 3,30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.

Against the said judgment dated 10.09.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3141 of 2017, an Appeal was filed. The said Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.194 of 2021) has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2022, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3.

Present Revision has been filed along with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 411 days’ in preferring the Revision.

4.

The Delay Condonation Application has not been opposed by the respondent no.2. The Delay Condonation Application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

5.

Admit.

6.

Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate, submits that the revisionist-accused Vinod Prasad is in judicial custody.

7.

Respondent no.2-Surendra Singh, proprietor of M/S Gautam Contractor-complainant is present-in person. He is identified by Mr. Reitu Parna Joshi, Advocate.

8.

Respondent no.2-complainant Surendra Singh submits that he has received entire amounts. He further submits that he has filed a joint compounding application along with affidavit with his free will and without any pressure, and, he does not want to proceed with the present Revision.

9.

Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate, submits that the revisionist has deposit Rs.49,500/- (Rupees forty nine thousand five hundred) (50% of the cheque amount). The receipt No.13 dated 28.08.2023, issued by the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, is taken on record.

10.

Both the parties have requested to decide the present Revision on the basis of the compromise.

11.

Consequently, the present Criminal Revision (No.593 of 2023) is allowed by holding that since the offence has been compounded, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal.

12.

The judgment dated 08.04.2022, passed by learned Appellate Court and judgment dated 10.09.2021, passed by learned Trial Court are set aside. The Revisionist is ordered to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

13.

A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Haldwani for necessary action.