Chattar Singh Thakur vs Beli Ram & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 14859 HP

                             1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                     SHIMLA
                      Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2014

                                      Decided on : 28.9.2023




                                                           .

    Chattar Singh Thakur
                                                   ...Petitioner





                              Versus

    Beli Ram & anr.
                                     ...Respondents
    ___________________________________________




    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting?
    ________________________________________________


    For the Petitioner : Mr.   Vinod                 K.        Gupta,
                         Advocate.

    For the Respondents : Mr.    Mukesh    Sharma,


                          Advocate, for respondent
                          No. 1.

                              Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.




                              Mohinder            Zharaick,
                              Additional         Advocates





                              General with Ms. Leena
                              Guleria,   Dy.    A.G.,   for
                              respondent No. 2.





    .
           Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioner Chattar Singh Thakur has filed the

present petition, against the judgment dated

13.6.2014, passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II, Camp at Rohru (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Appellate Court'), in Criminal Appeal No.

RBT-3-R/10 of 2014/2009, titled as, 'Chattar Singh

.

Thakur versus Beli Ram'.

2. By way of judgment dated 13.6.2014, learned

Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal.

The Judgment impugned before the Appellate Court

was modified to the extent that accused shall also pay

compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the

complainant, apart from undergoing the sentence

awarded.

3. The said appeal was preferred against the

judgment of conviction, dated 20.5.2009 and order of

sentence, dated 28.5.2009, passed by the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (1),

Rohru, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'the

trial Court'), in Case No. 82/3 of 2008/06, titled as,

'Beli Ram versus Chattar Singh'.

4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court

has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as

'the accused') for the commission of offence,

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

.

Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.

Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a

fine of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

5. The present Revision petition has been

admitted by this Court, vide order dated 21.7.2014.

6. Petitioner, Chattar Singh Thakur, has

deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Rohru

and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Rohru. During pendency of the present revision

petition, before this Court, learned counsel for the

petitioner has filed an application, bearing Cr.MP No.

3656 of 2023, under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, for

compounding the offence.

7. In the said application, factual position, with

regard to settlement of dispute with the respondent

has been mentioned.

.

8. Today, petitioner is present before this Court

and made statement on oath. Petitioner, Chattar Singh

Thakur, in his statement, has stated, in unequivocal

terms, that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-

with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohru

and Rs. 50,000/- with the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Rohru. He has put forward his

indigent circumstances to deposit the compounding

fee, with a prayer to grant him some time to deposit

the compounding fee and to show some leniency.

According to him, if he fails to deposit the

compounding fee, within the time granted by this

Court, then, he shall surrender before the learned trial

Court to undergo the substantive sentence.

9. Respondent, in his statement, recorded on

oath, before this Court, has accepted the statement

made by the petitioner. He has prayed that the

amount, which the petitioner has deposited before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohru and

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru,

.

may be released in his favour. He has no objection, in

case, the present petition is allowed and the accused

(petitioner) is acquitted from the offence, punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

10. Keeping in view the fact that the parties

to the lis have compromised the matter, which is

permissible under the provisions of Section 147 of the

N.I. Act, the present petition is allowed, by setting

aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned

trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate

Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence,

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject

to payment of 8% of the cheque amount, as

compounding fee. The amount shall be deposited by

the accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State

Legal Service Authority, Shimla, within six months,

from today.

11. It is further clarified that in case of

.

failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the

prescribed period, the revision petition shall be

deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, shall revive

automatically, and the applicant shall surrender

before the learned trial Court to serve out the

substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial

Court.

12. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is

allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds

furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.

The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

(Virender Singh) Judge

September 28 , 2023 Kalpana