Delhi High Court
Nipun Jasuja vs The State & Anr. on 15 October, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 862/2018
NIPUN JASUJA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
15.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 20.09.2018 of the appellate
court whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order on
conviction dated 17.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 01.08.2017
has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to four months
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. Parties have settled their disputes and settlement agreement
dated 27.09.2018 has been executed. Petitioner was convicted in two
complaints filed by the respondent both under Section 138 Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881. Subject complaint pertains to a cheque in the
sum of Rs.30,000/-.
4. Petitioner had agreed to pay total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to
respondent No.2. Rs.50,000/- was paid on 27.09.2018 and the balance
amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid today by way of Demand Draft
No.543447 dated 11.10.2018 drawn on ICICI Bank.
5. On 04.10.2018, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to
deposit cost equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount with Delhi State
Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5 SCC 663.
Petitioner has produced receipt of deposit of sum of Rs.4,500/- as
costs with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority equivalent to 15%
of the cheque amount.
6. Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person. He submits that
he has received the entire amount and has no objection to the
compounding of the subject offence.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has paid the entire
settlement amount and also cost in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the subject offence is
compounded. Petitioner is acquitted of the said offence.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Since the petitioner has been acquitted, petitioner be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
10. It is observed that by order dated 04.10.2018, petitioner was
directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Superintendent Jail.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that personal
bond and the surety bond were furnished to the Superintendent jail on
08.10.2018, however, till date petitioner has not been released.
12. Superintendent Jail shall furnish a report as to why the
petitioner was not released after furnishing the personal bond and
surety bond, in terms of order dated 04.10.2018.
13. List on 22.10.2018, for considering the report of the
Superintendent Jail.
14. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2018
st
