Delhi High Court
Imran vs State (Nct) Of Delhi & Anr on 27 August, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27.08.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 272/2019 and CRL.M.A. 5131/2019
IMRAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohammad Sajid and Mr. Arun
Saxena, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 34359/2019
1. Vide the present application, the applicant seeks direction thereby to
waive of the costs liable to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority.
2. It is stated in the application that the applicant is a poor person whose
monthly income is less than ₹7000/- . He is the only bread-earner of the
family and driving auto rickshaw. The petitioner is the only person in the
entire family to look after the needs of the family members which includes
his wife who is suffering from several diseases, his mother and two school
going children. It is further submitted that due to the execution of the
sentence, awarded to the petitioner, his entire family has already suffered for
no fault of theirs. To this effect, the medical documents of the wife of the
petitioner are annexed herewith as Annexure-P9 (Colly).
3. The respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court. He has no
objection if the present application is allowed.
4. In case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H: (2010) 5 SCC
663, the Hon'ble Supreme court considered the case of M P State Legal
Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain: [2014 (10) Scale 407] and held that it
is the discretion of the competent authority to reduce the cost in certain
cases, where the circumstances demands so.
5. Accordingly, considering the financial condition of the applicant, this
Court hereby waive off the amount to be paid to the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority by the applicant, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).
6. Application is allowed and disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 272/2019
7. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby setting
aside the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal
Appeal no. 267/2018 titled as "Imran vs. Charan Sethi" and also set aside
the judgment/order on sentence dated 29.05.2018 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) 01 in complaint case No. 2870/2015 titled
as "Charan Sethi vs. Imran" under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1882, consequently, acquit the petitioner in the complaint
case No. 2870/2015.
8. A criminal complaint under section 138 NI Act bearing no.2817/2015
was filed by the respondent no.2/complainant stating therein that petitioner
had taken a friendly loan of ₹3,75,000/- (Three Lakhs Seventy Five
thousand only) from the respondent no.2. But allegedly the petitioner failed
to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period, however, the
petitioner issued a cheque bearing no.002889 dated 15.09.2013 drawn on
HDFC bank for an amount of ₹3,75,000/- (Three Lakhs Seventy Five
thousand only). When the respondent no.2 presented the cheque in his bank
account, the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks "funds insufficient"
vide return memo dated 10.10.2013.
9. Accordingly, after going through the statutory procedure, the
respondent No. 2 filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act in which the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on
28.06.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of conviction
dated 23.05.2018 and order on sentence dated 29.05.2018. The said appeal
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. Sessions court vide its order
dated 28.01.2019 and presently the petitioner was in custody since
18.02.2019.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has paid the
amount of ₹3,75,000/- to the respondent No.2/complainant which he
accepted without any protest.
12. Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in Court and
submits that the petitioner is a poor person and he has paid the amount of
₹3,75,000/- which has been accepted and prayed before this Court that the
present petition be allowed.
13. Keeping in view the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H: (2010) 5 SCC 663, I hereby set
aside the order on conviction and sentence and consequently, the petitioner
is acquitted from the charges mentioned above.
14. Petition is accordingly allowed.
15. Pending application is also disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2019/PB
