JAGDISH KUMAR HANDA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

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 the complainant-respondent 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 one year and to pay compensation in the sum of '1,50,000/- to the respondent-Bank. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid conviction and sentence and the same was partly upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., maintaining the compensation amount imposed by the learned trial Court while the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court was reduced up to six months instead of one year. 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.) Today, the petitioner appeared in person and states that he has deposited a sum of '1,00,000/- in the State Bank of India, Mandi Branch and petitioner further states that he had already deposited a sum of '50,000/- before the learned trial Court which amount stands duly acknowledged by the respondent-Bank through his counsel. It is further represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent has received the amount in question, he is not at all interested in pursuing the complaint and the instant petition and should, therefore, be disposed of accordingly.

(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.