SANJAY Vs. STATE OF HARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjay-Accused has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide which the appeal preferred by him was dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "NI Act") and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, was upheld.

(2.) The complainant/respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from him as a friendly loan in the first week of September 2015 for a period of 3-4 months. Thereafter, the petitioner in discharge of the legal liability issued a cheque dated 14.12.2015 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on the HDFC Bank, Palwal from his account and handed it to the complainant-respondent No.2 which on presentation was dis-honoured with the remarks "account closed". Thereafter, a legal notice dated 05.01.2016 was served on the complainant before instituting the complaint. On the basis of the preliminary evidence, finding prima facie case against the petitioner, he was ordered to be summoned. On the basis of the evidence led by both the parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and convicted him accordingly. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal was dismissed on 25.11.2019. Aggrieved there against, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition impugning the judgments passed by both the Courts below.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner had at the very outset submitted that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2. During the course of hearing of the revision on 01.06.2020, the counsel had undertaken to deposit 15% of the cheque amount viz. Rs. 37,500/- as costs in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 AIR(SC) 1907. On the adjourned date i.e.03.06.2020, he produced on record a receipt to show that the said amount was duly deposited. Notice of motion was issued and the same was accepted by Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2, who were present on conference call.