RAJIV MOHAMMAD 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 six months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1, 10, 000/- to the complainant-respondent. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid conviction and sentence and the same was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) , 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.) Mr.Anil God, learned vice counsel for the respondent, states that a sum of Rs.4, 000/- as is reflected in the order dated 05.03.2018, has not been deposited by the petitioner. His statement is vehemently opposed by Mr.G.R.Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, without further going into this controversy, he states that his client is ready to deposit an additional amount of Rs.4, 000/- and, in fact, has prepared a bank draft of the said amount and he be permitted to deposit the same in the Registry of the Court.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the entire compensation amount now stands deposited either before this Court or before the trial Court. The amount so deposited is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant-respondent as per procedure.