IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 119 of 2007 Date of decision: 19.05.2008 Balraj Khanna ... Petitioner Versus Mohinder Lal Sharma & Anr. …Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking appropriate directions for quashing proceedings s against the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent as complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the present petitioner in regard to dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.4,57,000/-. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, who tried the case sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. An appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge and in some reconciliation proceedings, the order passed by the learned trial Court was 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 amended and an order was passed that in view of the compromise in between the parties, the petitioner shall be liable to deposit only sum of Rs.4,45,000/- on or before 21.4.2007. The sentence imposed by the learned trial court was quashed accordingly in view of the compromise. However, it was made clear by the learned Sessions Judge that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount in time, the conviction and sentence shall be deemed to have been maintained. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount by the required date i.e.21.4.2007 for the one reason or the other. The accused deposited the amount on 10.9.2007 In place of Rs.4,45,000/- as per the compromise, the petitioner deposited the full amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount has also been withdrawn by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has prayed that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court which automatically stood revised as per the order of learned Sessions Judge be set aside and the fine imposed may be maintained. A notice of the petition was issued to respondent No. 1 who inspite of service has not appeared in Court. It appears that he is not disputing the matter and has also withdrawn the amount in full. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned trial Court is amended to this extent that the petitioner shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. The substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is set aside. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has remained in custody for some days. In pursuance of the order. He shall be released on bail, if not released. The fine has been deposited. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court has been amended accordingly as detailed above. 3 In view of the above, the petition is allowed accordingly. Cr.MP No. 618 of 2007: This application has become infructuous since the petition has been allowed. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 19, 2008 Judge (BSS)