Sh. Jagdeep Krishan vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 5166 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                      .

                ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022.

                          BEFORE





         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 93 of 2022
         WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No.94 of 2022.





         Between:-

    1.   CRIMINAL REVISION No. 93 of 2022.

         SH. JAGDEEP KRISHAN, SON OF LATE
         SHRI RAM NATH, RESIDENT OF

         VILLAGE SILIHARI, NEAR POLICE STATION,
         KANDAGHAT, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

                                        ......PETITIONER.



         (BY SH. MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)

         AND




    1.   SH. DEEPAK KUMAR SON OF
         SHRI PAWAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF





         VILLAGE KIARI GHAT, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,
         DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.





    2.   STATE OF H.P.
                                        ......RESPONDENTS.

         (SH. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR
         RESPONDENT-1).

         (SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
         ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH. VINOD THAKUR,
         ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND
         SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR
         RESPONDENT-2).




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2022 20:02:48 :::CIS
                                  2




    2.   CRIMINAL REVISION No. 94 of 2022.

         SH. JAGDEEP KRISHAN, SON OF LATE




                                                         .
         SHRI RAM NATH, RESIDENT OF





         VILLAGE SILIHARI, NEAR POLICE STATION,
         KANDAGHAT, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

                                           ......PETITIONER.





         (BY SH. MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)

         AND


    1.

         SH. DEEPAK KUMAR SON OF
         SHRI PAWAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF

         VILLAGE KIARI GHAT, TEHSIL KANDAGHAT,
         DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

    2.   STATE OF H.P.
                                           ......RESPONDENTS.



         (SH. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR
         RESPONDENT-1).




         (SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
         ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH. VINOD THAKUR,
         ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND





         SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER, FOR
         RESPONDENT-2).





               These criminal revisions coming on for final
    disposal at the admission stage this day, the Court passed
    the following:


                         ORDER

These criminal revisions are directed against the

judgment(s) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan,

District Solan, H.P. on 31.12.2021 whereby the appeals

filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the revisions filed

.

on behalf of the respondent-complainant were partly

allowed.

2. The respondent-complainant instituted a

complaint under Section 137 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881, (for short N.I. Act) for dishonour of cheque

amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The same after the trial was

allowed and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by

the learned trial Magistrate to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of

Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

3. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned

Sessions Judge, who decided the same along with another

revision petition preferred by the respondent-complainant.

The revision petition filed by the respondent-complainant

was partly allowed to the extent directing the petitioner to

pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,75,000/- to the

respondent-complainant instead of Rs.4,50,000/-. However,

the imprisonment part had not been modified. As regards

the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was ordered to

be dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner

has filed these revision petitions, inter alia, on the ground

.

that the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge are

harsh and oppressive and otherwise are not in tune with

the objects of Section 118.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and gone through the records of the case.

6. As regards purpose and object for which N.I. Act

has been enacted, one needs to refer to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum

Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payre Lal

(1993) 3 SCC 35 wherein it was observed as under:-

"8. In order to properly appreciate the rival

contentions in the light of almost admitted facts, it is necessary to keep in mind the purpose and object

for which the Act was enacted and special provision for trial of suits based upon the Act was made under

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Generally speaking, the law relating to negotiable instruments is the law of thee commercial would which was enacted to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce making provision of giving sanctity to the instruments of credit which could be deemed to be convertible into money and easily passable from one person to another. In the absence of such instruments, the trade and commerce activities were

likely to be adversely affected as it was not practicable for the trading community to carry on

.

with it the bulk of the currency in force. The

introduction of negotiable instruments owes its origin to the bartering system prevalent in the

primitive society. The negotiable instruments are, in fact, the instruments of credit being convertible on account of the legality of being negotiated and thus easily passable from one hand to another. The

source of Indian law relating to such instruments is admittedly the English Common Law. The main object of the Act is to legalise the system by which

instruments contemplated by it could pass from

hand to hand by negotiation like any other goods. The purpose of the Act was to present an orderly and authoritative statement of the leading rules of law

relating to the negotiable instruments. The Act intends to legalise the system under which claims

upon mercantile instruments could be equated with ordinary goods passing from hand to hand. To

achieve the objective of the Act, the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to make provision in the

Act for conferring such privileges to the mercantile instruments contemplated under it and provide special procedure in case the obligation under the instrument was not discharged. Procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is a step in that direction providing for summary procedure for trial of commercial cases based upon negotiable instruments. The privilege conferred under the Act including the presumptions under

Section 118 of the Act and summary procedure provided under the C.P.C. are aimed at providing

.

certainty, security and continuity in business

transactions. The laws relating to the Act are, therefore, required to be interpreted in the light of

the objects intended to be achieved by it, despite there being deviation from the general presumptions of law and the procedure provided for the redressal of the grievances to the litigants."

7.

The object of Chapter-XVII of the N.I. Act is not

only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive.

r The

provisions of N.I. Act envision a single window for criminal

liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for

realization of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that

there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding

the compensation and unless there exist special

circumstances, the Court should uniformly levy fine up to

twice the cheque amount along with simple interest @ 9%

p.a. (Refer: K.S. Ranganatha vs. Vittal Shetty 2021 (14)

Scale 685).

8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in R. Vijayan vs. Baby & Another (2012) 1 SCC 260,

was reiterated and reaffirmed by Hon'ble three Judges'

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex

and another vs. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC

283, which in turn, was reiterated and reaffirmed in K.S.

.

Ranganatha vs. Vittal Shetty, 2021 (14) Scale 685).

9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law,

it needs to be noticed that the complaint in the instant

case was instituted on 07.07.2012 i.e. nearly a decade ago.

    The cheque amount       was Rs.5,00,000/- and, therefore, in

    such circumstances,
                     r          the learned Sessions Judge was

    absolutely     right in directing the        petitioner to              pay

compensation of Rs.5,75,000/- instead of Rs.4,50,000/- as

awarded by the learned trial Magistrate because after all

the complainant was required to be adequately

compensated.

10. Therefore, in the given circumstances, no fault

can be found with the judgment passed by the learned

Sessions Judge. However, since, the petitioner has paid the

entire amount, I deem it proper to compound the case.

Ordered accordingly.

11. Consequently, the impugned judgments of

conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial

Magistrate and as upheld by the learned Sessions Judge,

are quashed and set aside.

12. The revisions petitions are disposed of in the

aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

.

disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge 1st July, 2022.

    (krt)




                      r      to