High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 05 UK CK 0039

Tikam Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 May 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 204 words

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The revisionist was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,60,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (complainant) stated that the complainant has compounded the offence against the accused-revisionist.

2.

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides that the offences punishable under the said Act are compoundable. It is also the statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the respondent has received Rs. 1,30,000/- in cash and the balance of Rs. 30,000/- is deposited by the revisionist before the trial court, which amount be directed to be released in favour of respondent no. 2. In view of such statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Criminal Revision is allowed and as a consequence thereof, the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist is set aside.

3.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has no objection to CRMA No. 714 of 2014. It is, therefore, directed that Rs. 1,30,000/-, which is deposited by the revisionist in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun, be released in favour of respondent no. 2.

4.

This disposes of the Criminal Revision.