JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State.

3. The learned trial court vide Judgment dated 11.05.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Civil Court, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 371 of 2009/Trial No. 929 of 2009 had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and six months and had directed him to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) to the Complainant as compensation.

4. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2009 against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court in which the learned appellate court vide Judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribagh upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and modified and reduced the substantive sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one year and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) to the Complainant/Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed the criminal appeal.

5. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition against the Judgment passed by the learned appellate court whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court confirmed the Judgment of conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court with modification of the sentence.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it has been recorded in the order dated 14.03.2014 that the petitioner has already served the sentence. She further submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly accepted the notice regarding bouncing of cheque to be validly served and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned appellate court also.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1-State

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1–State submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and accordingly, the same do not call for any interference. He also submitted that inspite of repeated opportunities to compromise the case out of court, no joint compromise petition has been filed and accordingly, the present case does not call for any interference. However, he submitted that if any amount has been paid in furtherance of the so-called compromise, the same may be adjusted.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments passed by the learned courts below and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that on 18.03.2008, the Complainant presented a Complaint before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag alleging inter-alia that the Complainant had given a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner and to return the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 28.01.2008 and when the Complainant presented the cheque for its encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund. He again presented the Cheque on 30.01.2008 and it was again dishonoured and thereafter, he again presented the cheque on 19.02.2008 and it was again dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a legal notice on 29.02.2008 to the petitioner through registered post, but the petitioner neither returned the amount, nor replied.

9. After examination of the Complainant on solemn affirmation, vide order dated 05.04.2008, it was found that a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioner.

10. On 02.09.2008, the substance of accusation for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments