UMESH JANGALWAR Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred against the order/judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 225/2010, against the order/judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur dated 18.5.2010, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 23702/2006, holding the revisionist guilty of committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 55,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.

(2.) At the outset, learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that since the alleged offence under Section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of the said Act, therefore, they have settled their dispute keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act and entered into a compromise. Therefore, an application (I.A. No. 9312/2011) is moved on behalf of both the parties. It is submitted that the application in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and Anr., 2010 1 SCC 798, deserves to be allowed.

(3.) In the instant case, as per the allegation, the opposite party gave a sum of Rs. 50,000/-to the revisionist as a loan with the condition that the same has to be returned by 13.1.2000. However, on 14.3.2000, the revisionist asked for three months' extension for the repayment of the loan amount and also handed over a post dated cheque bearing No. 452113 dated 15.3.2000 of Punjab National Bank having Account No. 6149 of Rs. 50,000/- stating that in the event the amount is not returned by 14.3.2000, he can get the cheque encashed. When the revisionist failed to deposit the amount by 14.3.2000, the opposite party presented the cheque before the Bank on 15.8.2000 which was dishonoured with the note that the Account has already been closed. Thereafter, the complainant gave statutory notice to the revisionist within the prescribed time limit informing that the cheque handed over him has been dishonoured and, therefore, asking him to pay the amount due. However, when revisionist failed to pay the amount in time despite notice, the opposite party filed the complaint.