(1) Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.566/2007. (Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh) DATE OF ORDER : September 07, 2007 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________ Mr. B.S. Deora for the petitioner. Mr. Bharat Devasi for non-petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mehta, P.P. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.29/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the judgment/order passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sirohi on 05.07.2006 in Criminal Case No.241/2002 by which the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(in short, 'the Act' hereinafter) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and pay fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one (2) Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh month. Facts of the case reveal that complainant non-petitioner filed complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner in which it was stated that loan of Rs.20,000/- was given to the petitioner and, towards re- payment of the said loan, the petitioner issued a cheque No.075557 dated 01.07.2002 drawn on the Sirohit Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Kalindari in favour of the non-petitioner. The complainant non-petitioner deposited the said cheque for encashment on 12.07.2002 but the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficient amount in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, a registered notice was given and the same was received by the petitioner on 31.07.2002. However, the petitioner neither paid the amount of the cheque nor gave any reply to the notice. Upon complaint filed by the non- petitioner, on 25.11.2002 the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge was framed and after conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as noted above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise was arrived at in between the parties and the said compromise was submitted before the trial Court though, of (3) Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh course, after pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court but the Court became functus officio after pronouncement of the judgment and, therefore, the compromise has been filed before this Court and the same has been verified by the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court on 27.07.2007. It is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 2006 (1) NIJ 295, Cochin Hotels Co. (P) Ltd. & Another Vs. Kairali Granites & Another, considering the fact that offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act, permission to compound the offence may be granted and the compromise filed by the parties may be taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon order of this Court dated 07.09.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision No.721 of 2004 (reported in 2006 (1) NIJ 310) whereby, in similar circumstances, while allowing the revision petition this Court observed as under : “Sec.320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) provides compounding of offence. Sub-sec. (6) of Sec.320 of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Sec.401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section. Sub- sec. (8) of Sec.320 of the Code provides that the composition of an offence under this section shall have an effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” (4) Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the compromise as well as judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner complainant does not dispute the compromise. The compromise deed is duly verified by the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court. As envisaged under sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the effect of such compromise is acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. In the present case, application has been moved by the petitioner that in view of the compromise arrived at in between the parties, the petitioner does not want to pursue the revision petition further; and, in view of the fact, that learned counsel for the non-petitioner admits at Bar the fact of compromise having been arrived at in between the parties, it is just and proper to grant the petitioner's prayer that on the basis of the compromise the petitioner may be acquitted. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. As a result, the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No.241/2002, Iswar Singh Vs. Jhalaram, dated 05.07.2006 and, so also, judgment and order of the appellate Court dated 20.06.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.29/2006 are set aside and the (5) Jhalaram Vs. Iswar Singh petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the offence having been compounded by the non-petitioner. It is further ordered that if any amount is deposited by the petitioner by way of fine, the same may be returned to the petitioner. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.