IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 95 of 2010 In Compounding Application No. 1038 of 2011 Jang Bahadur Gangwar S/o Sri Ved Prakash R/o Village Dopahariya Tehsil Kiccha, P.S. Kiccha District Udham Singh Nagar .....................Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Rajeev Chitkara S/o Sri Sunder Lal R/o Punjabi Colony, Kiccha P.S. Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar ………....….......Respondents Shri J.S.Virk, Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri Piyush Garg, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2 (complainant) Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Compounding Application No. 1038 of 2011, for compounding of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in 2 respect of which the revisionist Jang Bahadur Gangwar was convicted by the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar) and the conviction and sentence was affirmed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide its order dated 14.05.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2008. (2) Heard. (3) The offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a compoundable under section 147 of the Act. (4) Respondent no.2 Rajeev Chitkara (complainant) identified by his counsel, is present in person in the court and verified that the offence has been compounded after he received sum in question from the accused/revisionist. Affidavits are filed by the complainant and respondent no.2 in support of the compounding application. (5) In the above circumstances, the Compounding Application No. 1038 of 2011 is 3 allowed. The revision stands disposed of with the observation that since the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is compounded between the parties, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar against the revisionist Jang Bahadur Gangwar, in Criminal Case No. 277 of 2006, stands set aside. Accordingly, the affirmation of the order by the appellate court also goes. The amount deposited in the court may be refunded to the party who has deposited the same. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.06.09.2011 N.P