Full Text
CRL.A. 1025/2013 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 1645/2013
JAGDISH SINGH Appellant
Through : Mr. Arun K. Sham, Adv.
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP.
Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Adv. for R-2.
NARENDER SINGH Appellant
SANDEEP SINGH @ MOHD IRFAN Appellant
2013:DHC:8337
DALEL SINGH Appellant
Through : Mr. S. Satyanarayan, Adv.
22.10.2013
ORDER
1. The parties have amicably resolved the matter. The terms of the settlement are recorded before the Continuous Lok Adalat on 1®^ October, 2013. As per the said settlement, all the appellants agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Dalel Singh - Rs.1,50,000/-, Jagdish Singh - Rs.50,000/-, Narender Singh - Rs.50,000/-, Sandeep Singh @ Mohd. Irfan - Rs.50,000/-) to the respondent no.2.
2. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 confirms the settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat on 1^^ October, 2013. The learned counsel further confirms the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/from the appellants in terms of the said settlement. The learned counsel further submits that he has instructions to state that respondent no.2 has no objection to the appeal being allowed and the appellants being acquitted.
3. The learned APP for the State has no objection to the above subject to cost being imposed upon the appellants.
4. This Court is satisfied that it is in the interest ofjustice and to maintain peace in the society to allow the appeals in terms ofthe settlement between the parties.
5. The appeals are allowed, the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is compounded and the appellants are acquitted ofthe charges subject to cost ofRs.5,000/- to be deposited by each of the appellants with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund for being utilized for rehabilitation of the victims of recent Uttaraldiand calamity. The cost be deposited within aperiod oftwo weeks. The original receipt of deposit of cost be filed mthe Registry and the copy thereof be delivered to the learned APP for the State. Thebailbonds stand cancelled.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1025/2013 submits that the appellant has deposited asum ofRs.25,500/- with the learned Trial Court by a demand draft dated IS'" December,
2010. It is submitted that respondent no.2 has not encashed the said demand draft and the said demand draft is lying with the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall return the said demand draft to the appellant.
7. The pending applications stand disposed of
8. Dasti.
OCTOBER 22, 2013 aj J.R. MIDHA, J