ROOP LAL Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on . 29.08.2017/31.08.2017, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.06.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) Today, both petitioner and respondent are present in person and identified as such by their respective counsel(s). When the case was taken up, then the parties were ad idem that apart from an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as aforesaid, the petitioner has also paid an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent. Since, the petitioner has already paid not only the principal compensation amount but an additional amount of Rs.30,000/-, therefore, the matter can be given quietus in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Nagpal versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 3 SCC 249 and P.Ramadas versus State of Kerala and another, (2018) 3 SCC 287, wherein it is clearly held that waiver of imprisonment in lieu of payment of additional compensation is permissible, though under exceptional circumstances.