TINKU MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 30.1.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rupnagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the judgment of his conviction and sentence, dated 1.9.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar, was dismissed.

(2.) According to the facts emerging on the file, the petitioner-accused, Tinku Malhotra, had obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- from respondent No. 2-complainant, Amit Jain. To repay the said amount, the petitioner-accused had issued a cheque, bearing No. 266635, dated 6.1.2009, for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Ropar, in favour of respondent No. 2-complainant. On presentation, the said cheque bounced. After completing the formalities of issuing notices etc., respondent No. 2-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar. The petitioneraccused was summoned and after completion of the evidence of both the sides, the petitioner-accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, besides to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- to respondent Nos. 2-complainant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner-accused presented an appeal, but that too was dismissed vide judgment, dated 30.1.2013, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rupnagar. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.

(3.) Today, respondent No. 2-complainant, Amit Jain, appeared with his counsel, Mr. Vishal Gogia, and submitted that he had effected a compromise with the petitioner-accused and has no grudge against him. He further submitted that the relative of the petitioner-accused had repaid the disputed cheque amount to him. He further stated that he had no objection if the present criminal revision petition was accepted and the petitioneraccused, Tinku Malhotra, was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, Amit Jain, had separately been recorded.