Full Text
Translation output
a
I4 o/o 28.OL.2OlI
Present: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. for the respondent. petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of
{5,OOO/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of t50,0OO/- to the respondent towards compensation. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. l8l2OO7 before the Additional Sessions
Judge thereby challenging his conviction and sentence as awarded by the
Trial Court. However, his this appeal came to be dismissed on 22nd February,2OIO. That is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of present revision petition. It appears that petitioner was convicted in two other complaint cases also initiated by the respondent under Sectionl38 of the Act. In the said cases also after the appeals had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner had filed Criminal Revision
Petition Nos. Loll2olo & Iosl2oto before this court. During the pend.ency of these petitions, petitioner and respondent have arrived at a settlement whereby petitioner has offered a sum of T1.75 lakh to the respond.ent towards all her claims. This offer was accepted by the a
2011:DHC:10561
) respond"ent. Settled amount of tl.75 lakh was payable in installments.
On payment of {L,2O,OOO/- offence under Section 138 of the Act involved in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 10L|2O1O & tO3l2oL0 was permitted to be compounded by this Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2OtO and petitioner had been acquitted in the said cases. A sum of T25,000/- has already been paid to the respondent ort 22nd Decembet, 2010 in this case. Remaining amount of {3O,OOO/- has been paid in cash to counsel for the respondent today in the Court. Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that respondent has no objection if the offence is compound.ed since the settled amount has been paid by the petitioner. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, offence under
Section 138 of the Act is permitted to be compounded. Petitioner is acquitted.. Her bail bond is cancelled and suret5r bond is discharged
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 28,?OLL ga a
2011:DHC:10561
I4 o/o 28.OL.2OlI
Present: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. for the respondent. petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of
{5,OOO/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of t50,0OO/- to the respondent towards compensation. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. l8l2OO7 before the Additional Sessions
Judge thereby challenging his conviction and sentence as awarded by the
Trial Court. However, his this appeal came to be dismissed on 22nd February,2OIO. That is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of present revision petition. It appears that petitioner was convicted in two other complaint cases also initiated by the respondent under Sectionl38 of the Act. In the said cases also after the appeals had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner had filed Criminal Revision
Petition Nos. Loll2olo & Iosl2oto before this court. During the pend.ency of these petitions, petitioner and respondent have arrived at a settlement whereby petitioner has offered a sum of T1.75 lakh to the respond.ent towards all her claims. This offer was accepted by the a
2011:DHC:10561
) respond"ent. Settled amount of tl.75 lakh was payable in installments.
On payment of {L,2O,OOO/- offence under Section 138 of the Act involved in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 10L|2O1O & tO3l2oL0 was permitted to be compounded by this Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2OtO and petitioner had been acquitted in the said cases. A sum of T25,000/- has already been paid to the respondent ort 22nd Decembet, 2010 in this case. Remaining amount of {3O,OOO/- has been paid in cash to counsel for the respondent today in the Court. Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that respondent has no objection if the offence is compound.ed since the settled amount has been paid by the petitioner. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, offence under
Section 138 of the Act is permitted to be compounded. Petitioner is acquitted.. Her bail bond is cancelled and suret5r bond is discharged
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 28,?OLL ga a
2011:DHC:10561
JUDGMENT