Allowed

Dayal Singh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2017CRLR/683/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to acquit the petitioner after restoration of proceedings upon surrender and compromise. The conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act and sentence were set aside, subject to deposit of 15% cheque amount for release from custody.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment convicting the petitioner was set aside; petitioner acquitted. Ordered to deposit 15% of cheque amount for release from custody.

Dayal Singh Vs State and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 683 / 2012

¶3

Dayal Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged about 55 years, by caste Kamboj Sikh, resident of 23 S.T.G., Post, Dalmana, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan.

¶7

Harmeet Singh S/o Shri Basant Singh, by caste Kamboj Sikh, Resident of 23 G.B. Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP.

¶11

Mr. Mohd. Arif.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

15/09/2017

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

¶16

available on record.

¶17

The instant revision which was earlier dismissed for nonprosecution has been restored pursuant to the petitioner surrendering in the trial court.

¶18

The petitioner surrendered before the court below on 06.09.2017 and on the same day, the parties filed a compromise certified copy whereof has been placed on record. The complainant has mentioned in the compromise application that he has received the cheque amount and does not desire further prosecution of the accused petitioner. The offence under Section

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLR-683/2012]

¶21

N.I. Act is compoundable without permission of the Court..

¶22

In this background, I am of the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No.285/2003 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to 1 year S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/as well as the judgment 08.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.30/2008 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, keeping in view the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babulal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 , the petitioner shall be required to deposit 15% of the cheque amount (15% of Rs.4,00,000/) in the trial court whereafter, he shall be released from custody. The amount upon being released shall be appropriated in the funds of State Legal Services Authority.

¶23

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J

¶24

Tikam/56

Dayal Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayal Singh v. State 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

Arjundan and Ors. Vs State

Luna Khan and Ors. Vs State

State Vs Vijaypal Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Choyal and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Hitesh

Vishnu Vs State