Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: March 21 vs The Manager on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2022
Decided on: March 21, 2023
________________________________________________________
Surinder Tegta .........Petitioner
Versus
.
The Manager, HP State Agriculture and Rural Development Bank
...Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Shyam, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss. 397/401 CrPC,
lays challenge to judgment dated 11.4.2022 passed by learned
Sessions Judge forests, Shimla camp at Rohru in Cr. Appeal No. 1-
R/10 of 2021, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 1.12.2020/30.12.2020 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Rohru, district Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 236/3 of 2019 titled Manager HP State
Agriculture and Rural Development Bank v. Surinder Tegta, whereby
learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter,
'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,30,000 to the
respondent/complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record,
.
are that the complainant instituted proceedings under S. 138 of the Act
in the competent court of law alleging therein that the accused took
loan of Rs.7.00 Lakh from the Bank for development of land, which
was to be repaid in half yearly installments. Since accused did not
make payment in time, he with a view to discharge his liability, issued
cheque bearing No. 780363 dated 7.2.2019 amounting to
Rs.2,70,495/- drawn at UCO Bank Rohru. However, the facts remains
that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured due to
insufficient funds, as such, the complainant issued legal notice on
19.3.2019 to the accused, asking him to repay the cheque amount.
Since the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated
period, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.
138 of the Act. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on
record, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable
under S.138 and sentenced and convicted him as per description given
above.
3. Though being aggrieved by judgments of conviction and
order of sentence recorded by learned Courts below, accused
preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge (Forests), but the
same was dismissed. In the aforesaid background, the accused has
approached this Court in the present proceedings, praying therein for
acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of
sentence recorded by learned courts below.
4. In compliance to order dated 27.6.2022 passed in CrMP No.
.
1818 of 2022, whereby substantive sentence imposed upon the
accused by learned trial Court was suspended subject to petitioner
depositing 50% of compensation amount and furnishing personal
bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety, accused has
deposited Rs.1,65,000 in the Registry of this Court and Rs. 54,099/-
before learned Sessions Judge (Forests).
5.
Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for
the petitioner made available copy of demand draft No. 942129, dated
20.3.2023 amounting to Rs.1,11,000/- of the Himachal Pradesh State
Co-operative Bank Limited, Tikkar, prepared in favour of Registrar
General of this Court, to state that the accused is ready and willing to
make payment of entire amount awarded by learned trial Court. He
states that since petitioner is ready to make payment of entire amount
of compensation, this court while exercising powers under S.147 of the
Act can proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of
the charges framed against him. Demand Draft, when presented by the
accused in original, shall be taken on record by the Registry and
deposited in short term deposit.
6. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent
states that in case entire amount of compensation awarded by learned
court below is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent Bank
it shall have no objection for compounding of the case, but since the
Bank was dragged into litigation for realization of its own amount, some
litigation charges may be awarded in favour of the complainant Bank.
.
7. Having taken note of the aforesaid fact with regard to deposit
of the entire amount of compensation and statement made by the
learned counsel for the accused that the amounts deposited in this
Court and learned Sessions Judge (Forests) may be released in favour
of the Bank, coupled with the fact respondent has no objection for
compounding of the offence, in case entire amount is released in its
favour, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on
behalf of the accused for compounding of the offence in light of S.147
of the Act and in terms of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC
663, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that court may compound
the offence in those cases also, where conviction has been recorded.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Judgments of
conviction and order of sentence passed by learned courts below are
quashed and set aside and accused is acquitted of the charge framed
against him. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.
Amounts deposited with the Registry of this Court and with learned
Sessions Judge (Forests) are ordered to be released in favour of the
complainant, on its making formal applications in this regard.
9. Since complainant Bank was dragged into litigation for
realization of its own money, this court deems it fit to award
Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost to be paid by the accused to the
complainant within eight weeks, failing which accuse shall render
himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court.
.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith
all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
March 21, 2023
(Vikrant)
r to
