KHEEM RAM Vs. HANSRAJ SETIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -revisionist was convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year vide order dated 03.6.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District -Nainital. Aggrieved against the same, the convict preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 24/2011, which was dismissed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 05.9.2014. The order dated 3.6.2011 passed by learned Trial Court was affirmed. In other words, the conviction and sentence awarded to the convict was upheld. Still aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred by the convict -revisionist.

(2.) A Compounding Application being CRMA No. 1655 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Compounding application is supported by the affidavits of the revisionist and complainant. Complainant Hansraj Setiya is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. D. N. Sharma, Advocate. He says that he is in receipt of Rs. 2,40,000/ -, which has been paid by the revisionist to him. He also says that he is not interested in prosecuting the revisionist. All that he prays is that, since a compounding has taken place between him and the revisionist, therefore, the order directing conviction and sentence to the revisionist be set aside. Revisionist Kheem Ram is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate. The revisionist affirms in the open Court what is stated by the complainant Hansraj Satia.

(3.) THE accused -revisionist says that he is ready to deposit 15 % the cheque amount in the account of Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 AIR(SC) 1907