SATENDRA THAPA Vs. GAGANPREET SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. -
(1.) HEARD . By means of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought modification of the order dated 12.08.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2011, whereby said court disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise between the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner Satendra Thapa was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Dehradun, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 5194 of 2009. Aggrieved by said judgment, the convict (present petitioner) appears to have filed a Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2011. During pendency of said appeal, the Compromise Application No. 10A was filed by the parties to litigation, which was accepted by the appellate court, and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise, permitting the complainant, to withdraw Rs. 27,000/ - deposited before the trial court, as mentioned in application 10A. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate court, while disposing the appeal has not mentioned specifically that the conviction and sentence is set aside, as such, the modification is needed. Section 362 of Cr.P.C., provides that though, the court cannot alter its judgment but it can correct the clerical errors. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that the judgment passed by the trial court gets merged in to the one passed by the appellate court. Since the appeal has been disposed of in terms of the compromise, the apprehension of the petitioner that he can be arrested appears to be unfounded. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application under Section 362 of Cr.P.C., if he so likes.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.