Allowed

Hetram v. Bhanwarlal and Anr.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2017CRLR/1017/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal revision, quashing judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Despite accepting a compromise, the court ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000/- as costs per Damodar S. Prabhu. Upon deposit, the petitioner was to be released from custody.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments set aside; petitioner acquitted; release granted contingent on deposit of Rs. 15,000/- costs.

Hetram Vs Bhanwarlal and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1017 / 2017

¶3

Hetram S/o Shri Hariram, By Caste Jat, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Tehsil & District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhanwarlal S/o Shri Dularam Rajpurohit, R/o Police Station Behind Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil Hanumangarh. (Complainant)

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.I.R.Choudhary.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.R.Upadhyay, P.P., Mr.Ummed Singh Chouhan.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

20/09/2017

¶14

The petitioner stands convicted by learned ACJM, Hanumangarh in Cr.Case No.994/2011 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and was sentenced to suffer six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,10,000/-, in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by judgment dated 8.6.2016 which was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh by judgment dated 13.7.2017 passed in Appeal No.14/2016.

¶15

The petitioner is presently lodged in the District Jail, Hanumangarh.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the parties have filed an

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

application to take the compromise executed between the petitioner and the complainant respondent No.1 on record. The compromise application has been verified by the Dy.Registrar (Judl.), Raj. High Court, Jodhpur today itself.

¶19

In view of the fact that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable without formal permission of the Court, the application is accepted. The impugned judgments dated 13.7.2017 and 8.6.2016 are set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. However, considering the fact that the compromise has been arrived at, at the stage of revision, the petitioner will be required to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the trial court as cost to be imposed in light of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 . Upon the cost being deposited, the petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The cost shall be appropriated in the funds of the Legal Services Authority.

¶20

The revision is allowed in these terms.

¶21

/tarun goyal/

Hetram v. Bhanwarlal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hetram v. Bhanwarlal and Anr.

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

Sanjay Vs State

Harish and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Inder Singh Vs State

Wasim Khan Vs State

Hariom and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthn and Ors.

Ramniwas and Anr. Vs State and Anr.