Crl. R. No.972 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. R. No.972 of 2010 Date of Decision:20.05.2010 Gurvinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sunil Toni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. for the respondent -State Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgement dated 15.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide which, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.2000/-. Crl. R. No.972 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the matter has been compromised. Accordingly, the petitioner and the complainant should be allowed to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The amount of the cheque involved is Rs.1.10 lacs. The petitioner offered to pay a sum of Rs.2.70 lacs in lieu of the dishonoured cheque. Respondent No. 2 has accepted the said offer. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit of Parshotam Singh-complainant stating therein that the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the said charge. The affidavit is taken on record. Further, a separate statement of the complainant to that effect has also been got recorded in the Court. In his statement, the complainant stated that he has received a demand draft bearing No. 588629 dated 08.04.2010, issued by State Bank of India Sector 41, Chandigarh in his favour for a sum of Rs.2.70 lacs towards the dishonoured cheque from the accused petitioner and, as such, he has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. In view of the above, it is clear that the during the pendency of the revision petition, the matter has been compromised between the parties Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under: “147. Offence to be compoundable- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” Reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by this Crl. R. No.972 of 2010 3 Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another 2009(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 61 whereby this Court has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of O.P Dholakia v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 762 wherein the Apex Court was pleased to allow the accused and the complainant to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act despite conviction and sentence having been held by three Forums. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled. Accordingly, in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and statement of the complainant recorded separately stating that he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.03.2010, is set aside and the present petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid charge. Revision petition is accordingly allowed as above. 20.05.2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) mohan JUDGE