Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Khare vs Chandrabhan Singh on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1606 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
SURESH KHARE SON OF BASTIRAM KHARE, R/O
CHICHOLI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPESH GIRI - ADVOCATE)
AND
CHANDRABHAN SINGH, SON OF BIBARILAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY
SADAR, BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.24431 of 2023 for change of counsel is taken up, which is
supported by an affidavit of applicant.
2. For the reasons stated in the I.A. No.24431 of 2023, the same is
allowed.
3. Applicant may engage a new counsel.
4. Also, heard on admission.
5. Applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 379/401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment passed by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Betul (MP) dated 26.06.2003 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.32/2002 arising out of the judgment 20.05.2002 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul in Criminal Case No.150/2002.
6. The trial Court had convicted the applicant under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act vide judgment dated 20.05.2002 and sentenced to
undergo R.I for one year with fine of Rs. 75,000/-
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque of
Rs.60,000/- is stated to have been issued in the year 1999 and the Court has
awarded the fine of Rs.75,000/- which would cover the loss of value of money
sufficiently and the present applicant has already deposited the aforesaid fine
amount of Rs.75,000/- in the year 2004. I.A No.266 of 2005 has been filed to
bring the said fact on record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed I.A No.266 of 2005 for
permission to compound the offence in terms of Section 320(2) Cr.p.C.
However, as the said application is not signed by the complainant, no
permission for compounding the offence can be given.
9. In view of the fact that the applicant has accepted his liability towards
the cheque in question and has stated to have paid the amount of compensation
of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant, the conviction of the applicant under Section
138 of Narcotic Instrument Act is maintained.
10. However, looking to the fact of the case is of the year 2002 and the
present applicant has been contesting the case since last 22 years and has been
appearing before this Court or before the trial Court as a condition of
suspension of sentence or bail and has already deposited the entire
compensation amount in the year 2004, the jail sentence awarded to the present
applicant is set aside.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the applicant, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
