Allowed

Vidya Wati v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CRR/3279/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged convictions for cheque dishonour. The Court observed a post-convolution compromise and subsequent penalty payment were not reflected in the appellate judgment passed ex parte. Holding continued conviction a misuse of process, the Court acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Judgments dated 19.09.2009 and 25.10.2010 setting conviction and sentence are set aside; petitioner acquitted.

Vidya Wati Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRR No. 3279 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRR No. 3279 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.01.2012

¶4

Vidya Wati

¶5

........ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Ms Puja Chopra , Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a revision petition against the judgements dated 19.09.2009 and 25.10.2010 passed by the JMIC Patiala as well as ASJ, Fast Track Court, Patiala, vide which, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-.

¶18

The petitioner was convicted by the JMIC, Patiala vide judgement dated 19.09.2009. He filed an appeal before the ASJ, Patiala. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner entered into compromise

¶19

CRR No. 3279 of 2010 2

¶20

with the complainant. However, when the order was passed in appeal, neither the petitioner nor the counsel nor the respondent or his counsel was present. It was, therefore, an ex parte order. The lawyers were also not aware of the compromise. Thus the factum of compromise could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, the present revision is against the judgements of trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner.

¶21

Notice was issued to respondent No. 2. The same was received back as duly served. However, in spite of number of opportunities, respondent No. 2 has not appeared till date. The petitioner has placed on record a receipt, showing that the said amount towards the dishonoured cheque stood paid to the respondent/complainant by the petitioner. Probably, it was on this account, respondent No. 2 might have lost interest in the case and chose not to appear either before the Appellate Court at the time of hearing of the appeal or before this Court. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 20.06.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty in terms of judgements rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S Prabhu vs. Sayed Bahalal H 2010 (2) RCR (Crl.) 851 with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said amount too has been duly deposited with the concerned authority.

¶22

It is, therefore, evident that the appeal as well as the present revision has not been contested by the complainant/respondent. Thus, this Court has no doubt that the amount towards the dishonoured cheque already stands paid to the respondent/complainant.

¶23

In view of the above, allowing the conviction and sentence of

¶24

CRR No. 3279 of 2010 3

¶25

the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to stand would be nothing but a sheer misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the judgements dated 19.09.2009 and 25.10.2010 passed by the JMIC Patiala and ASJ, Fast Track Court, Patiala, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the said charge.

¶26

Disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶28

19.01.2012 mohan

Vidya Wati v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Wati v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pardeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Lal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ran Singh & Anr. Vs Naraini Devi & Ors.

Jaswant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another