IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1158 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.7.2008 Harjeet Singh and another ...Petitioners vs Amarjit Singh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr.Tajinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. *** Judgement Rajesh Bindal, J. Harjeet Singh petitioner no.1 who is the proprietor of petitioner no.2 M/s. Guru Nanak Traders, through the present petition has challenged the order of his conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ludhiana. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo further imprisonment for two months. The complaint in the present case was filed by the respondent on account of dishonour of cheques bearing nos.601922 and 601923 dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 50,000/- each, issued by the petitioner in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after conviction of petitioner no.1 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 petitioners of the cheques, in question, in complaint has already been paid, and accordingly, the offence may be compounded and the conviction of petitioner no.1 be set aside. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, rather he very fairly submitted that he has no objection in case Criminal Revision No.1158 of 2008 (O&M) -2- ***** the conviction of the petitioner is set aside.. The respondent, who was present in court in person, had admitted the factual position. He has been identified by his counsel. The respondent has also filed his affidavit in the court, in this regard. 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 compoundable. 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section Criminal Revision No.1158 of 2008 (O&M) -3- ***** 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 petitioner no.1 is set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith. The petition is disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 8.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge