M/S Garg Contractors And Anr vs M/S Amrit Trading Company And Anr

......Petitioners

Versus

M/s Amrit Trading Company and another

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate and Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.09.2015

passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind whereby petitioner No.2 was

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of two years and was directed to pay compensation of

Rs.81,24,537/- along with 6% interest from the date of institution of the

complaint till realization of the amount and order dated 13.03.2018 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal of the

petitioner against the order dated 24.09.2015.

1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 01:58:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116045

the complainant was dealing in sale and purchase of Timber in whole-

sale/retail at Jind Headquarters. He used to run his business on debit and

credit basis and used to keep and maintain daily regular accounts books of

business transactions at Jind Headquarters for all intents and purposes.

Petitioner No.2 being proprietor of petitioner No.1 used to purchase timber

from the complainant on credit basis from Gandhidham, Panchkula and Jind

and used to pay the amount of bills of Timber as per his suitability by way of

Bankers Cheque and on the date of issuance of cheques a legally recoverable

sum of more than the amount mentioned in the cheques, was due against the

petitioner towards the complainant as per ledger account of petitioner No.1

maintained by the complainant at its branch offices. In lieu of the part

payment of aforesaid legally recoverable balance amount, petitioner No.2

being sole proprietor of petitioner No.1 had issued and delivered different

cheques which were dishonoured for the reasons of 'Exceed Arrangements'

and the same were returned. Legal notice dated 17.11.2011 was issued and

served upon the petitioners. Despite the receipt of the legal notice, the

petitioners did not clear the dues and hence, the complaint was filed.

3. On conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced under Section 138 of the NI Act to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of two years by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind vide its

judgment dated 24.09.2015. The petitioner was also burdened with

compensation of Rs.81,24,537/- to be payable to the complainant. Aggrieved

by the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Jind, the petitioner assailed the same by way of filing an appeal before

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Learned Additional Sessions 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 01:58:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116045

upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence, the

petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition

challenging the above said orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that after

dismissal of the appeal, the matter has been compromised and the amount, as

agreed in the compromise, has also been paid by the petitioner to the

complainant and now nothing is due against him. He has further submitted

that once the parties have settled the dispute amicably, then in view of the

law settled, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence and he be

acquitted of the charges framed under Section 138 of NI Act. He has placed

reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Raj Reddy

Kallem vs. The State of Haryana and another', Law Finder Doc Id#

2557645, wherein, it has been held that there is no bar to seek the

compounding of the offence at a later stage of criminal proceedings

including after conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

stated that the amount involved in the present case was Rs.81 lacs and the

petitioner has paid Rs.1.00 crore to the complainant and an additional

amount of Rs.19 lacs has been paid as compensation by taking into

consideration the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

'Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayad Babalal H. 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851', and

the petitioners may be allowed to compound the offence in the present case

and the additional amount already paid to the complainant may be treated as

compensation, which is required to be awarded by this Court in view of the

observation made in the above said case.

3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 01:58:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116045

contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted

that he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed. He has further

stated that he has no objection if the additional amount of Rs.19 lacs

received by the complainant is treated as the compensation in lieu of the

judgment passed in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (Supra).

6. As the parties have compromised the matter and have buried the

hatchet, no purpose would be served by punishing the petitioner, who has

already honoured the terms of the compromise, which fact has been affirmed

by the counsel of respondent No.1/complainant. In Raj Reddy Kallem's case

(supra), it has been held that the accused must try for compounding of the

offence at the initial stages instead of later stages, however, there is no bar to

seek the compounding of offence at later stage of criminal proceedings

including after conviction. As the petitioner has already paid additional

amount of Rs.19 lacs to the complainant so the same is ordered to be treated

as a compensation required to be awarded to the complainant in lieu of

judgment passed in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (Supra).

7. So keeping in view above facts and the law settled by Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the petitioner is allowed to compound the offence and he is

ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. As a

consequence, the order dated 24.09.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Jind vide which the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and order dated 13.03.2018 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner

against the order dated 24.09.2015, are set aside and the petitioner is

4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 01:58:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116045

CRR-3444-2018 5

acquitted of the charges framed against him. Petition stands allowed.

8. Petitioner No.2 be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any

other case.

05.09.2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) ps-I JUDGE

whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 01:58:28 :::