Criminal Revision No. 2560 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2560 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.11.2009 Gayana ..... Petitioner vs The Hisar Bhartiya Dak Tar and Government Employees Co-operative Urban (SE) T&C) Society Limited and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. BS Walia, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Mrs. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner through the present petition has challenged the order of his conviction passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The complaint in the present case was filed by respondent no. 1 on account of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 008151 dated 19.4.2004 for Rs. 43,145/-, issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-Society drawn on Union Bank of India, CRM Jat College Branch, Hisar. As the accused-petitioner was ready and willing to settle the account with the respondent-society, he was ordered to be released on bail by this court on 26.10.2009. The relevant extract of the order is as under:- “xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that amount of Rs. 70,000/- as demanded by the Society as full and final to settle the account of the petitioner is agreeable. He has paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to Mr. BS Walia, Advocate, counsel for respondent no. 1- Society in court. He submitted that the balance Rs. 20,000/- will be paid by him before the next date of hearing. xxx xxx xxx xxx” Criminal Revision No. 2560 of 2009 -2- In terms of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has paid the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- today in court to Ram Singh, President of the society, who is present in person in court. It was further stated by him that he has no objection in case the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as after conviction of the petitioner in the present case, the dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise and in terms thereof, the entire amount due against the petitioner of the cheque, in question, in complaint has already been paid, the offence may be compounded and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, rather he very fairly submitted that he has no objection in case the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. The respondent, who was present in court in person, had admitted the factual position. Once the parties have settled their dispute, in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2007 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3843, the offence committed by the petitioner for which he has been convicted, is compoundable. Relevant paras therefrom are extracted below:- “17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists & Engineers, (1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of bank operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally componding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realised this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002. (Act 55 of 2002). The said section reads thus: S.147. Offences to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be Criminal Revision No. 2560 of 2009 -3- compoundable. 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent. 19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 45,000/- has been paid by the appellant towards full and final settlement to the respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2008 (2) Criminal Court Cases 233 (R.Rajeshwari v/s H.N.Jagdish) opined that table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted for offences under the Act as Section 147 thereof gives it overriding effect as the same provides for a non obstente clause, Stricto Senso, however, the table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as the provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. It is further held that even a compromise arrived at by the advocate of the party, authorised to do so, is binding on the party concerned. In view of settlement of dispute between the parties, the offence and conviction is compoundable, accordingly, it is directed that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below in the case of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The petition is disposed of. 3.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge