SURENDER DHALTA Vs. ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, has been filed against judgment dated 28.2.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 90-S/10 of 2012, affirming judgment dated 28.6.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. I, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 9/3 of 2010, whereby petitioner-accused has been held guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rorhu, alleging therein that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 00 Lakh to the petitioner-accused on his demand to meet his marriage expenses. Petitioner-accused, with a view to discharge his liability issued two cheques bearing No. 4567715 and 4567725 both amounting to Rs. 1.00 Lakh each. However, the fact remains that Cheque bearing No. 4567715 dated 15.8.2009, was dishonoured on account of 'insufficient funds', as a result of which, respondent complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings against petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act ibid. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent complainant, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act ibid and convicted and sentenced him as described above. Petitioner-accused being aggrieved preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Shimla, which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 90-S/10 of 201 However, the fact remains that the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court, by way of present criminal revision, seeking his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction passed by both the learned Courts below.

(3.) On 29.5.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that petitioner is ready and willing to get the matter compromised by paying entire amount in terms of judgment passed by learned trial Court.