Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 2061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Surendra Sao - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 682 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2017
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; APP, for the State; Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 2
The court recognized the significance of compromise as an exceptional circumstance and exercised its discretion to condone the delay and exempt the petitioner from surrender.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Compromise - Section 138 - Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an interlocutory application for condonation of delay and exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. The petitioner also filed an application against the judgment convicting him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the delay in filing the application and exempted the petitioner from surrender due to a compromise between the parties. The court quashed and set aside the judgment convicting the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues: Condonation of delay, exemption to surrender, and compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties as an exceptional circumstance and allowed the applications based on the same.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the application was condoned, the petitioner was exempted from surrender, and the judgment convicting the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - It has been submitted that defect No. 4 has already been removed.
1. A. No. 6228 of 2017
2. Heard the parties.
3. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the instant application.
4. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 35 days in filing the instant application is hereby condoned.
6. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been returned back to the O.P. No. 2.
8. It has further been submitted that in view of the compromise, petitioner be exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
9. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any objection since an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-has been received by him.
10. In view of the fact that compromise has been effected and situation being an exceptional circumstance, this application is allowed. Petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules.
11. I.A. No. 6227 of 2017 is disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. 682 of 2017
12. This application has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.1.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2014, whereby and where under judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 on 9.5.2014, by which petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year, has been affirmed and compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been reduced by the learned appellate court to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
13. Complaint case in brief is that an agreement was entered into with respect to sale purchase of land under khata No. 18, plot No. 361, area 0.9 decimals situated at Mauza Doiyadih, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma. It is stated that on the request of accused, Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid. Subsequently, it was detected that there was a family dispute with respect to the said land and ultimately a cheque was given in favour of O.P. No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-,which on being presented to the bank was dis-honored due to insufficiency of funds. A legal notice was sent by the complainant but in spite of the same, when the amount was not returned, complaint case being Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 was filed. After conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 cognizance was taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Koderma by judgment dated 9.5.2014 had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and apart from sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year had also imposed a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-.The petitioner had preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2014, which was dismissed on 3.1.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma upholding the judgment of conviction but reduced compensation amount from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was paid towards purchase of land, has been returned back to the O.P. No. 2., for which he has referred to I.A. No. 6227 of 2017. Learned counsel thus submits that since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, impugned judgment of convi
