1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER 1. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1164/2005. Prakash Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. 2. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1181/2005. Prakash Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 27th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Biri Singh for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. Mr. Sunil Tyagi ) for the respondent. Mr. N.A. Naqvi ) BY THE COURT: Since both the above revision petitions arise out of the common order, they are being decided by this judgment. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that complainant Hukam Chand filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') which was tried by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur city, Jaipur wherein it was averred that against the loan the petitioner gave cheques to the complainant, in all cheques were for Rs.4 lacs. On presenting the cheques in the concerned bank, the same were dishonored for the reason of 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the complainant to the petitioner. Ultimately a complaint was filed. 2 The petitioner denied the charge. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by petitioner Prakash Chand Jain against his conviction and sentence and a revision petition was filed by non-petitioner Hukam Chand for enhancement of amount. The learned appellate court heard both the matters, i.e. appeal and the revision petition together and by a common judgment dated 14.11.2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Prakash Chand Jain against his conviction and sentence but allowed the revision petition filed by Hukam Chand to the extent that conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of the Act was maintained and fine was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.8 lacs. Hence, the present two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner since the same arise out of the same transaction. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties have amicably settled the matter and now no amount is due in petitioner of the complainant Hukam Chand. It is contended that an application to compound the offence has already been filed, therefore, permission to compound the offence may be granted. It is submitted that the parties have compromised the matter and a compromise-deed has already been filed in the court, therefore, the order under challenge passed by the learned court below be quashed and set aside. 3 After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and considering the application moved for granting permission to compound the offence, it appears that the amount in question has already been received by the complainant, the application seeking permission to compound the offence has been moved under the signatures of both the parties and their advocates, attested compromise-deed has also been filed. All the above documents are on record. In view of the above stated facts and in view of the compromise entered between the parties, I deem it proper to grant permission to compound the offence and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned court below. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed. The parties are allowed to compound the offence. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court and as modified by the learned appellate court are hereby set aside. The petitioner is in jail and if he is not required in any other case, he may be set at liberty forthwith. (S.P. PATHAK,J)