ROOP LAL Vs. MURARI LAL RANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to deal with the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that complainant-respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') which after trial was allowed by the trial Magistrate and the petitioner was ordered to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- to complainant-respondent No.1. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid conviction and sentence and the same was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition assailing the judgments of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Courts below.

(2.) It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The amount deposited by the petitioner be released in favour of the complainantrespondent No.1 as per procedure. Since the amount is too meager and the same already stands deposited by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that there is no need to issue notices to complainant-respondent No.1.

(3.) From the records of the case, I find that this is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can 'stricto sensu' be termed to be an offence against the State. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.