Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-271/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 271/2022
Laxman Meghwal S/o Dula Ji, Aged About 29 Years, Opp. To
Primary School, Sakaroda, Teh. Girva, Dist. Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pratap Singh Bhati S/o Kishan Singh, Near Secondary
School, Sakaroda, Teh. Girva, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
Mr. Himmat Singh Bhati
Mr.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The question arose whether in the revisionary jurisdiction, it
was mandatory for the convicted accused to surrender or not.
To this, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the
judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Vishnu Teli
Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Revision
Petition No.1733/2009), decided on 25.11.2010, relevant
portion reads as under :-
"Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the non-surrender of
the appellant or revisionist would not make the appeal or the
petition non-maintainable. The non-surrender would merely
(Downloaded on 07/04/2022 at 08:26:43 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-271/2022]
mean that the appeal or the petition has not been presented
properly before the registry. Therefore, the preliminary
objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor is
unacceptable.
Both, the accused person and the complainant are present
before this Court; they have been duly identified by their
respective counsel; a compromise, entered between the parties,
has also been produced before this Court; the same shall be
taken on record. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
opined that the aim and purpose of Section 138 of NI Act is not
to punish the accused, but to ensure that the due amount is
duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of
litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act, in case the amount is
paid and is duly accepted by the complainant the Apex Court is
of the opinion that the case should be compounded and the
accused should be acquitted.
In the present case, the amount has duly been accepted by the
complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof. Thus,
this Court quashes and sets aside the judgments dated
09.02.2009 and 12.11.2009 and acquits the petitioner for the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. "
This Court finds that in Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act which is more of a civil character in criminal
procedure, the judgment rendered by learned counsel for the
petitioner in Vishnu Teli (Supra) is directly applicable.
It is also stated at Bar that a compromise has been arrived
at between the parties after the judgment dated 15.12.2020
passed by the appellate court, whereby the judgment dated
30.08.2017 passed by the trial has been affirmed.
It is borne out from the compromise that the complainant is
not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a
decision of Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs
Sayed Babalal H [2010(5) SCC 66].
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant
respondent No.2 had accepted the sum towards full and final
(Downloaded on 07/04/2022 at 08:26:43 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-271/2022]
settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant
and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view
of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (supra), the sentence awarded to the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set
aside. However, as compromise has been arrived at after rejection
of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the
cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in the
light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the
case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the
cheque amount with the Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two weeks from
today.
The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act, vide judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned Special
Judge (NI Act Cases) No.2 Udaipur in Criminal Case No.104/2013
(CIS No.5329/2014) as affirmed by judgment dated 15.12.2020
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in
Criminal Appeal No.47/2017 (CIS No.439/2017), are hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
186-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
