SIBENDHU SEKHAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) IN this revision the petitioner assails his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in ICC No. 557 of 2007 and the confirming Judgment of the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Cri. Appeal No. 65 of 2008.

(3.) AFTER trial, the learned SDJM, Sadar, Cuttack found that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he convicted the present petitioner and directed him topay compensation of Rs. 9, 50,000/- to the complainant and to undergo SI for two years, failing which the complainant was at liberty to realise the same through process of Court. Such conviction was challenged by the present petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 65 of 2008, the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack as per his judgment dated 10.3.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction recorded by the SDJM, Sadar, Cuttack. Such concurring judgments are challenged in this revision. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 10.8.2009 and the petitioner and opp. party No. 2 i. e. the complainant filed a joint affidavit on 17.8.2009 stating that a settlement has been entered into between him and the opp. party No. 2 the accused. It is further averred that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 8, 00,000 by way of A/C Banker's cheque bearing No. 033630 dated 5.8.2009 of the Axis Bank Ltd. has been paid by the petitioner towards the full and final settlement to him (complainant) towards the dues, the complainant has no objection if order of acquittal is passed. He further averred that the original lease deed of IDCO which was kept as security with the opp. party No. 2 has already been returned to the petitioner. He also declares that he does not want to proceed further in the case and the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act may be compounded for the ends of justice. He is duly identified by Mr. Biswaranjan Sahu, Advocate. The affidavit reveals that the complainant is identified by Advocate Mr. S.K. Patnaik.