RAMESH SHARMA Vs. ROHINI ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant application filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C read with Sec. 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act'), prayer has been made on behalf of the applicantaccused for compounding of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, under Sec. 138 of the Act. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent. Ms. Pooja Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent, fairly states that after passing of judgment dtd. 16/12/2022 passed by this Court, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? learned court below came to be upheld, parties have entered into the compromise, whereby respondent-complainant has received the entire amount of compensation and as such, prayer made in the instant application can be accepted.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that respondent/Complainant (hereafter referred to as the 'complainant') instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that accused had purchased agricultural articles from him for consideration of Rs.1,00,060.00. Though, with a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No.316417, dtd. 17/7/2013, amounting to Rs.1,00,060.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Theog, District Shimla, however, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice issued, accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated time, complainant was compelled to institute complaint under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, which subsequently on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the respondent-complainant.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, District Shimla, but same was dismissed on 17/12/2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, applicant- accused preferred criminal revision No.335 of 2021 in this Court, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dtd. 16/12/2022.