Tarlok Singh Chauhan JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 502 of 2018
1. By medium of this application, the applicant/petitioner has sought condonation of 121 days delay which has crept up in filing of the revision petition. For the reasons set-out in the application, more particularly the contents of paras 2 & 3 thereof, I find sufficient cause which prevented the applicant/petitioner from filing the revision within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly the application is allowed and the aforesaid delay in filing of the revision is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
Criminal Revision be registered.
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1177 of 2018
2. Allowed as prayed for. The legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 Pankaj Sharma, as mentioned in para-3 of the application are ordered to be substituted in his place. Application stands disposed of. Amended memo accompanying the application is ordered to be taken on record.
Cr. Revision No. 375 of 2018.
3. Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the original complainant Pankaj Sharma instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that the cheque of Rs. 22,000/- handed over by the petitioner to the complainant in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the complainant by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs. 33,000/- to the complainant.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 21.4.2014/22.07.2014, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.2017, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.
5. Today, when the case was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties as the petitioner has deposited the entire compensation amount of Rs. 33,000/- in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur. Since, the petitioner has already deposited not only the cheque amount of Rs. 22,000/-, but an additional amount of Rs. 11,000/-, totalling to Rs. 33,000/- as compensation amount as directed by the learned trial Magistrate, therefore, the matter can be given quietus in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Nagpal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, MANU/SC/0051/2018 : (2018) 3 SCC 249 and P. Ramadas v. State of Kerala and another, MANU/SC/0145/2018 : (2018) 3 SCC 287, wherein it is clearly held that waiver of imprisonment in lieu of payment of additional compensation is permissible, though under exceptional circumstances.
6. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it would be noticed that even in this case, the circumstances are exceptional inasmuch as the petitioner is facing the pangs and suffered agony of protracted trial and thereafter appeal/revision for the last nearly 10 years and has not only deposited the cheque amount of Rs. 22,000/- but has also deposited an additional amount of Rs. 11,000/- totaling to Rs. 33,000/- before the learned trial Magistrate.
7. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the impugned substantive sentence of simple imprisonment imposed in this........