Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAVI RAJ ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vidhya Bhushan, Advocate with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent: Respondent in person.
Crl.M.A.10305/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 28.01.2019, whereby, appeal of the appellant impugning judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2018 and order on sentence dated 21.12.2018 has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 138 2019:DHC:2600 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the respondent and in default to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment. Subject Cheque was of Rs.[2] lakhs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has settled with the respondent and the respondent has agreed to accept the total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims. He submits that the entire amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has already been paid.
4. Respondent is present in Court in person and represented by counsel. Respondent has also filed his affidavit stating that he has received the entire amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and has no objection to the compounding of the subject offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Safai Karamchari and does not have sufficient means to pay the entire cost of Rs. 30,000/- (being 15% of the cheque amount) with Delhi State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5 SCC 663. He submits that Petitioner is not being permitted to join duty because of these proceedings and is not receiving any salary.
6. Petitioner, who is present in Court in person, submits that he has made an arrangement for Rs.15,000/- and undertakes to deposit the same with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority by tomorrow and the balance Rs.15,000/-, he undertakes to deposit on or before 21.05.2019. The undertaking is accepted.
7. In view of the settlement with the respondent and payment of the entire settlement amount and also the undertaking given by the petitioner that he shall deposit the costs of Rs.30,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5 SCC, in the manner as undertaken hereinabove, subject offence is compounded. Petitioner is acquitted of the subject offence.
8. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
9. List for directions/reporting compliance on 22.05.2019.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. MAY 13, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J st