Court sets aside conviction, affirms another in Section 138 case. Compounding fee imposed despite financial hardship plea.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the conviction and sentence of one convict while affirming the same for the other in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following an amicable settlement between the parties, the complainant withdrew the complaint, leading to the compounding of the case. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 3,000 as a compounding fee despite requesting an exemption due to financial hardship. The Court ordered the release of deposited amounts to the respective parties, emphasizing the use of downloaded copies for legal purposes to streamline procedures.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Settlement between parties leading to withdrawal of complaint.
3. Exemption from compounding fee based on financial condition of the accused.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh heard a Revision Petition challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentencing of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment set aside the conviction and sentence of one convict while affirming the same for the other. The accused filed the petition against this decision.

2. Both parties, through their respective counsels, informed the Court about an amicable settlement reached between them. The petitioner deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,40,000, out of which Rs. 2,29,000 was to be released to the complainant, and the remaining amount was to be refunded to the petitioner. Consequently, the complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint, leading to the compounding of the case and the withdrawal of the complaint arising from the dishonor of the cheque.

3. The petitioner's counsel requested an exemption from the compounding fee of 15% due to the accused's poor financial condition. Citing legal precedents, the Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 3,000 as the compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in consequential action to recover the amount as a fine under the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The Court ordered the release of the deposited amounts in favor of the complainant and the petitioner, as per the settlement terms. The trial court was directed to release the specific amounts along with interest to the respective parties. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and the judgment was sent to the State Legal Services Authority for necessary action.

5. The Court emphasized that parties could use downloaded copies from the High Court website for various purposes, including depositing the compounding fee, without the need for a certified copy. This decision aimed to facilitate the process for the parties involved and the concerned authorities.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the legal proceedings and outcomes related to the appeal, settlement, and exemption from the compounding fee.

---