SUNIL KAKKAR Vs. GLOBAL LEASING AND FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 01.03.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity "the Act"), was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1- Global Leasing and Finance Limited had filed the complaint through its Director-Sh.Baldev Singh Kalsi, against petitioner-Sunil Kakkar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on the allegations that Sunil Kakkar (petitioner) had issued a cheque bearing No.595563 dated 17.02.2003 for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- drawn on Haryana State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh, in favour of the complainant with the assurance that the same would be encashed on its presentation but on presentation, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, a complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. After completion of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides the payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and indefault thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Court of Session at Chandgiarh which was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2013. However, the substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of one year. The remaining part of the sentence remained intact. The petitioner, by way of the present criminal revision petition, has challenged the judgment passed by both the courts below. During the pendency of the revision petition, the better sense has prevailed and both the private parties have effected a compromise. The statement of respondent No.1-complainant has separately been recorded by this Court wherein, he has admitted the factum of the compromise and has no objection if the Criminal Revision Petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No.1 has also admitted the factum of compromise. The affidavit of the respondent has also been placed on record and the same is taken on record. Even the learned counsel for respondent No.2-UT has also no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the private parties.