CRLR/766/2019 of BHANU BHATT ALIAS BHUWAN CHANDRA BHATT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Revision No. 766 of 2019

Bhanu Bhatt @ Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt

...... Revisionist

State of Uttarakhand and another …..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the private respondent. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the private respondent.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the conviction and sentence of the revisionist recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Complaint Case No. 1043 of 2017, Pratap Singh v. Bhanu Bhatt) by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora (“the case”) by which while convicting the revisionist under Section 138 of the Act, he has been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-, with other stipulation in default of payment of fine; as also the judgment and order dated 03.12.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2019, Bhanu Bhatt v. Pratap Singh, by the Additional District Judge, Almora, by which the conviction was upheld, but sentence was modified and instead of fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the fine was reduced to Rs. 3,75,000/- with other directions.

2. In this revision, joint compounding application along with the affidavits of the parties has been filed.

3. Heard and perused file.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

5. On 23.11.2020, this Court had directed the revisionist to deposit the amount in view of the judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 66.

6. Today, statement is given that the amount has been deposited. slip has been tendered at the time of hearing.

7. The revisionist and the informant are personally present before the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the contents of the compounding application and stated that they have settled the dispute amicably.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is case which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed.

9. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

10. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. His bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged of their liabilities.

11. Compounding application No. 4129 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

24.11.2022