Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Singh vs Union Bank Of India & Anr on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.267 of 2024
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Karam Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India & Anr. ... Respondent
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals, for respondent
No.2/State.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Instant petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 23.05.2022
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District
Mandi, H.P in Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 2019, affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 5.03.2024 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. II, Sundernagar, District
Mandi, H.P., in Criminal complaint No.268-I-2017/241-I/2017,
whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused
(hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence
punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
four months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/- to
respondent No.1 -complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant').
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
record are that the respondent instituted a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the
competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing
No.678023, dated 7.6.2017, amounting to Rs.3,40,000/- drawn on
Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Office Bhojpur, District Mandi, H.P,,
having been issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of
his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in
the bank account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal
notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within
stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings
under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.
3. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced on
record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having
committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordinigly
convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.
4. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial
Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., but same was
dismissed. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this
court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after
.
setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed
by both the learned Courts below.
5. On 2.5.2024, this Court having taken note of the
statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire
amount of compensation stands deposited with the respondent-Bank
under "One Time Settlement", suspended the substantive sentence
imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court, subject to his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. On account of
the compromise, petitioner filed an application under Section 147 of
the Act, praying therein for compounding the offence.
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned
counsel representing the petitioner states that under "One Time
Settlement", entire amount of the compensation has been repaid to
the respondent-bank and as such, this Court, while exercising power
under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence.
7. Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel representing
respondent No.1-bank, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard
to compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire
compensation amount has been received by the respondent-bank
under "One Time Settlement", this Court may allow the prayer made
on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of the offence.
.
8. Having taken note of the fact that the parties have
compromised the matter and amount has been received by the
respondent-bank, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the
prayer made on behalf of petitioner-accused for compounding the
offence, while exercising power under section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act . Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed
Babalal H.(2015)5 SCC 663, has categorically held that Court, while
exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to
compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts
below.
9. Consequently, in view of above, prayer made on behalf
of the accused is allowed and offence committed by him under S.138
of the Act is ordered to be compounded. Judgments of conviction and
order of sentence passed by learned courts below are quashed and
set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under S.138 of the Act.
10. In the aforesaid terms, instant petition is disposed of,
alongwith all pending applications. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the
accused are discharged.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 03,2024
(shankar)
