Dinesh Porwal v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court set aside conviction and imprisonment under Section 138 NI Act after post-judgment compromise and full settlement by petitioner, imposing 15% cost deposit as per Damodar S. Prabhu principles.
What did the court decide?
Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 15% cost with Legal Services Authority within one month.
What the court decided
[2023:RJ-JD:43402]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 542/2020
Dinesh Porwal S/o Tek Chand Porwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dudhiya Ganesh Ji, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
- State, Through P.p.
- Abdul Sattar S/o Abdul Rashid, By Caste Musalman, R/o Majumwali Pol, Jagdish Road, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Mankad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP Mr. Gaju Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence of imprisonment under Section 138 NI Act are liable to be set aside upon post-judgment compromise and payment.
Whether cost should be imposed on the petitioner in light of Damodar S. Prabhu judgment when compromise was reached after rejection of appeal.
Whether conviction and sentence orders dated 16.01.2020 and 15.03.2017 should be set aside.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Dinesh Porwal
- respondent
State
- respondent
Abdul Sattar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/542/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court