Patna High CourtCR. REV./467/2015dismissed

Binod Tiwari @ Binod Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-08-27Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No. 467 of 2015 =================================================== Binod Tiwari @ Binod Kumar Tiwari son of Jagdish Tiwari, resident of Mohalla- Haribatika, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Hitendra Pratap Singh son of Rajendra Pratap Singh, resident of Mohalla- Haribatika Pokhra, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Rajeev Nayan(App) =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 02.

27.08.2015 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

The Petitioner seeks revision of the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2012, by which he has affirmed the judgment dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran at Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 1304-C of 2009 (Tr. No. 1895 of 2012), by which he has convicted the Petitioner under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

The Petitioner produces a Demand Draft of Rs. 16,000/- bearing its No. 18912 dated 24.08.2015 which

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.467 of 2015 (2) dt.27-08-2015 was arrears amount which Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 receives and signs in the margin of the order-sheet. In view of such, the conviction of the Petitioner dated 20.03.2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Cr. Appeal No. 131 of 2012 is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

However, it will be open to the Opposite Party No. 2 to proceed in accordance with law for his other claims. With the aforesaid observations, the Revision Application stands dismissed.

Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.) U T