Allowed

Ramesh Zinta v. Sohan Thakur

Himachal Pradesh HC19 May 2017CR.R/57/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision #57/2017, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petitioner-convict's challenge to the suspension of his sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act subject to deposit of one-fourth of the cheque amount. The Court held the condition lawful, not harsh or oppressive, but granted the petitioner six weeks to deposit the amount to vacate the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to deposit one-fourth of cheque amount within six weeks; failing which, impugned order shall stand vacated automatically.

Ramesh Zinta Vs Sohan Thakur — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Revision No. 57 of 2017. Decided on: 19.5.2017

¶2

Ramesh Zinta .......Petitioner. Versus Sohan Thakur ….…Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel.

¶3

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).

¶4

Order dated 17.1.2017 passed in an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, Camp at Rohru is under challenge in this petition. The petitioner is a convict. Learned Addl. CJM (I), Rohru in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (case No. 186-3 of 2011) has convicted him under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/-.

¶5

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶6

¶7

The judgment passed by the trial Court is

¶8

Annexure P-1. In an appeal registered as Cr. Appeal No. 2- R/10 of 2017, learned appellate Court has suspended the substantive sentence subject to furnishing personal bond by the petitioner-convict in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and also on deposit of 1/4^th of cheque amount.

¶9

The complaint is that no condition of depositing 1/4^th of cheque amount could have been imposed upon the convict-petitioner while suspending the sentence passed against him. I am afraid that any such grouse could have been brought to the Court because the deposit of entire amount of compensation is a condition precedent for seeking suspension of the sentence passed against an

¶10

offender booked for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Anyhow, this Court is not entering upon any such controversy and leave it open to the aggrieved party to agitate the matter, if so advised. However, this petition is without any merits because suspension of sentence awarded against the petitioner-

¶11

¶12

convict subject to deposit of 1/4^th of the cheque amount is neither legally nor can be said to be harsh or oppressive. The petition, as such, is dismissed, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount in question in the trial Court within six weeks from today, failing which, the impugned order shall stand vacated automatically and the law will take its own course in the matter.

¶13

The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also

¶14

the pending application(s), if any.

¶15

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) May 19, 2017 (karan) Judge.

Ramesh Zinta v. Sohan Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Zinta v. Sohan Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp

Arjun Kumar Vs Motti Ram

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Ram Kumar

Jagdish Chand Jaswal Vs State of Hp

State Bank of India Vs Sandeep Kapila

Suresh Kumar Dogra Vs State