Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065229
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-10-2012
AppellantPresent: Mr. Gurcharan Dass Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crr no.3761 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryanaat chandigarh crr no.3761 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: december 10, 2012 tarlok singh ..petitioner versus state of punjab and another ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh 1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.gurcharan dass, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.gurinderjit singh, dag, punjab. mr.vaibhav narang, advocate, for respondent no.2. paramjeet singh, j. (oral) present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned additional sessions judge, ludhiana, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2009 passed by learned judicial magistrate firs.class, ludhiana, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of rs.500/-. in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three days. brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint was filed by crr no.3761 o”2. respondent no.2 – complainant against the petitioner under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act with the averments that the petitioner took a loan from the complainant of rs.10,000/- and in order to discharge liability to pay back loan amount, the accused issued cheque bearing no.764852 dated 28.02.2004 amounting to rs.10,000/-. said cheque on presentation for encashment was dishonoured with the remarks “exceeds arrangement”.thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 06.03.2004 upon the accused, but the accused failed to comply with the notice. after recording preliminary evidence, the accused-petitioner was summoned under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, notice of accusation was served upon the accused-petitioner to which the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. the complainant, in order to prove his case, examined sukhdev singh, clerk state bank of patiala as cw1, ravinder singh, senior officer, icici bank model town, ludhiana as cw2 and himself as cw3 and closed his evidence. thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 cr.p.c.all incriminating circumstances were put to him. he denied the same and pleaded innocence. the learned trial court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 10.09.2009. thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned additional sessions judge, ludhiana, crr no.3761 o”3. vide judgment dated 16.11.2012. hence, this revision petition. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably. learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has handed over a sum of rs.10,000/- to the learned counsel for respondent no.2 in court today. learned counsel for respondent no.2, on instructions from the respondent-complainant, who is present in court today, states that the complainant would have no objection, if the present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted in the complaint in question on the basis of compromise. learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also placed on record an affidavit dated 10.12.2012 of the complainant to the above effect, which is taken on record. the hon'ble supreme court of india in the matter of damodar s. prabhu versus sayed bablal h. reported in 2010(2) r.c.r.(criminal) 851, has held as under:- “15. with regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned attorney general has urged this court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. it was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, crr no.3761 o”4. since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years.an application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. in view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- the guidelines (i) in the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) that directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the firs.or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) if the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the legal services authority, or such authority as the court deems fit. (c) similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the sessions court or a high court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) finally, if the application for compounding is made before the supreme court, the figure would increase to crr no.3761 o”5. 20% of the cheque amount. let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the legal services authority operating at the level of the court before which compounding takes place. for instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a magistrate's court or a court of sessions, such costs should be deposited with the district legal services authority. likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the high court should be deposited with the state legal services authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the supreme court should be deposited with the national legal services authority.” consequently, in view of affidavit dated 10.12.2012 and keeping in view the law laid down by the hon'ble surpeme court in the matter of damodar s. prabhu (supra).present revision petition is allowed. impugned judgments and order of sentence are set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of rs.10,000/- i.e.rs.1500/- with the state legal services authority, punjab within one month from today, failing which same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner will have to serve the remaining part of the sentence. the petitioner, who is stated to be in custody be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. december 10, 2012 [paramjeet singh].vkd judge
Judgment:

CRR No.3761 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3761 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 10, 2012 Tarlok Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

(Oral) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Ludhiana, vide which the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

In default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three days.

Brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint was filed by CRR No.3761 o”

2. respondent no.2 – complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the averments that the petitioner took a loan from the complainant of Rs.10,000/- and in order to discharge liability to pay back loan amount, the accused issued cheque bearing No.764852 dated 28.02.2004 amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

Said cheque on presentation for encashment was dishonoured with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangement”.Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice dated 06.03.2004 upon the accused, but the accused failed to comply with the notice.

After recording preliminary evidence, the accused-petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, notice of accusation was served upon the accused-petitioner to which the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined Sukhdev Singh, Clerk State Bank of Patiala as CW1, Ravinder Singh, Senior Officer, ICICI Bank Model Town, Ludhiana as CW2 and himself as CW3 and closed his evidence.

Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.All incriminating circumstances were put to him.

He denied the same and pleaded innocence.

The learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 10.09.2009.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, CRR No.3761 o”

3. vide judgment dated 16.11.2012.

Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled amicably.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Court today.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from the respondent-complainant, who is present in Court today, states that the complainant would have no objection, if the present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted in the complaint in question on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also placed on record an affidavit dated 10.12.2012 of the complainant to the above effect, which is taken on record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Damodar S.

Prabhu versus Sayed Bablal H.

reported in 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 851, has held as under:- “15.

With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence.

It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, CRR No.3761 o”

4. since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for yeaRs.An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice.

In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the fiRs.or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to CRR No.3761 o”

5. 20% of the cheque amount.

Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place.

For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.”

Consequently, in view of affidavit dated 10.12.2012 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the matter of Damodar S.

Prabhu (supra).present revision petition is allowed.

Impugned judgments and order of sentence are set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed, subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e.Rs.1500/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab within one month from today, failing which same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the petitioner will have to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

The petitioner, who is stated to be in custody be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

December 10, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh].vkd Judge