Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRR No.2410 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:4.10.2013 Daksh Narain ......petitioner Versus U.T.Chandigarh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for U.T.Chandigarh.
Respondent No.2 in person.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act) in complaint No.340 dated 23.11.2005 filed by respondent No.2.
The trial Court, vide judgment/ order dated 5.8.2011 convicted and sentenced the petitioner qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 6.6.2013.
However, sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court was reduced from one year to six months.
Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has paid ` 1,40,000/- to respondent No.2.
Learned Devi Anita 2013.10.09 11:52 I am approving this document Chandigarh CRR No.2410 of 2013 (O&M) -2- counsel has further submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act but sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Respondent No.2 is present in person and has admitted the fact that he has received ` 1,40,000/- from the petitioner and has submitted that he will not claim the compensation as awarded by the Courts below.
Respondent No.2 has further submitted that he has no objection if the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Since the complainant has already received ` 1,40,000/- from the petitioner, the compensation as ordered by the courts below, is, thus, deemed to have been received by the complainant.
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is maintained.
However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
It is clarified that petitioner is not liable to pay compensation as ordered by the courts below as respondent No.2 has received ` 1,40,000/- from the petitioner Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) October 04, 2013 JUDGE anita Devi Anita 2013.10.09 11:52 I am approving this document Chandigarh