Himachal Pradesh High Court
CR.R/239/2011 on 28 December 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Criminal Revision No. 239 of 2011 and
Cr.M.P.No. 1015 of 2011.
Date of decision: 28.12.2011.
Jamshed Ali son of Shri Abdul Rashid Prop. of J.D.Garments Sarwari Bazar, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.
…Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Inder Singh son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Akhara Bazar, Kullu, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
....Respondent.
Criminal Revision under Section 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 13.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 26/11, confirming the judgment dated 5.3.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Criminal Complaint No. 284-I/2007.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Satpal Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________
Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral)
On 2.12.2011 notice was issued to the respondent returnable on 4.1.2012. The petition has been taken up today on mention which has been allowed.
2. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘Act’). The learned counsel for the parties have jointly __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and joint application has been filed by the parties which is duly signed by the parties as well as their counsel for compounding the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and the respondent. Alongwith the application receipt of ` 10,000/- has also been annexed showing that the applicant has paid ` 10,000/- to the respondent.
3. It has been stated in the application that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties. Mr. Naveen K.Bhardwaj, Advocate has stated that 15% of the cheque amount by way of draft amounting to ` 7,500/- has already been placed on record for compounding the case. I have gone through the application and I am satisfied that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. In these circumstances, the application is allowed, the matter is allowed to be compounded. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu on 5/8.3.2011 in Criminal Complaint No. 284-I/2007 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on 13.10.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2011 are set-aside and the applicant Jamshed Ali is acquitted of the accusation.
4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the conviction of petitioner an amount of ` 40,000/- has been deposited by petitioner either in the lower appellate Court or trial Court, this amount along with interest, if any, shall be released in favour of Inder Singh, respondent by the learned Court below when an application is filed to this effect by Inder Singh. The amount of ` 7,500/- which has been deposited by Jamshed Ali shall be remitted in the H.P.High Court Legal Services Committee account in terms of Damodar S.Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663. The petition is disposed of on above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.
December 28, 2011.
( Kuldip Singh ), (GR)
Judge