IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 520 of 2009
P.K. Chakraborty @ Pranav Chakraborty. ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Pankaj Kumar Agrawal. ... ... ...Opp. Parties
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner: M/s Tarun Kumar, Prashant Pallava &
S.K.Gautam, Advocates.
For the State: A.P.P.
-------------
C.A.V. on 09.10.2009 : Pronounced on 12.10.2009
-------------
I.A.No.1512 of 2009
D.K.Sinha,J. Heard.
Having been satisfied with the grounds taken in the
Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act delay
of 679 days in filing the instant Cr.Revision is allowed.
I.A.No.1512 of 2009 stands disposed.
Cr. Rev. No. 520 of 2009
This Cr. Revision is directed against the judgment dated
04.09.2009
passed in Cr. Appeal No. 114 of 2007 by the 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which the appeal of
the petitioner against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act was dismissed and thereby confirmed the judgment
dated 25.05.2007 passed by Shri K.K.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Jamshedpur in T.R.No.405 of 2007 arising out of Complaint C/1
Case No. 1444 of 2006. by which the petitioner was convicted for the
said charge and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 4 months and was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- being
the compensation to the complainant-O.P.No.2 herein.
2. The prosecution story in short was that the Complainant-
O.P.No.2 on account of long standing acquaintances and having good
relationship he had lent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 18.05.2006 as friendly
loan to the petitioner on demand on the latter’s promise to return the
same within a month. When the amount could not be returned by the
petitioner within the time stipulated, the complainant approached the
petitioner who issued a cheque bearing No. 0400373 on 18.08.2006 for
a sum of Rs. 30,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Telco Campus Branch
infavour of the complainant. It was alleged that when the cheque was
presented on 21.08.2006, it was returned with the endorsement
‘insufficient fund’. The complainant immediately informed the petitioner
about dishonour of the cheque which was issued by him but no attention
was paid in respect of making payment of the cheque amount and only
2
thereafter the complainant O.P.No.2 herein sent a legal notice on
02.09.2006 which was received by the petitioner on 04.09.2006 and
even then when no interest was taken to pay back the loan amount , the
complainant-O.P.No.2 filed a case for the alleged offence under Section
138 N.I. Act before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur.
3. The complainant-O.P.No.2 entered appearance and filed a
counter-affidavit through the Counsel in this Criminal Revision.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at
the outset submitted that the parties have entered into the compromise
and settled their disputes amicably with the intervention of well-wishers
and common friends. The dispute was resolved by the complainant on
acceptance of Rs.30,000/- which was advanced by him to the petitioner
as friendly loan. Such amount was paid by the petitioner to the
complainant through different cheques as contained in paragraph No.5
of the Compromise to the satisfaction of O.P.No.2 and the instrument of
compromise has been brought on the record of Cr. Revision and marked
Annexure-1, duly signed by the Complainant-O.P.No.2 (Pankaj Kumar
Agrawal) as has been drawn in the form of an affidavit.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed before this Court, the
Complainant-O.P.No.2 has corroborated the averment made in the
Compromise Petition and stated that in view of the
settlement/compromise between the parties the complainant has already
received the entire amount of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner through
different cheques drawn on Union Bank of India, Sakchi Branch and his
Counsel orally submitted that the complainant had no longer grievance
against the petitioner and hence upon composition of the offence under
provision of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, 1881 appropriate order may be
passed by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner.
6. In Alpa Sanghani Vrs. State of Jharkhand and another a
Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision No.753 of 2005 held,
” Since the parties have settled the disputes as
regards the cheques involved in this case I feel that
the petitioner can be dealt with leniently in the matter
of sentence. Learned Counsel for the 2nd- Respondent
has also no objection for taking the lenient view in the
matter of sentence. In the above circumstance, the
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner
is set aside. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioner with default stipulation are confirmed. As the
sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid, the direction that
the petitioner should pay compensation is set aside.”
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
taking the considered view on the basis of the Compromise entered into
between the parties and acceptance of Rs. 30,000/- by the Complainant-
3
O.P.No.2 on his full satisfaction, which was the compensation amount, I
find that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is fit to
be set aside. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set
aside and this Cr. Revision stands disposed of.
8. As the Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner is in
custody on remand since May, 2009, let the petitioner P.K. Chakraborty
@ Pranav Chakraborty be released forthwith in C/1 Case No. 1444 of
2006 corresponding to T.R.No.405 of 2007 if he is not wanted in any
other case.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.