'^.^ ( 1 <®.J $9,1l ^•ll HjGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR 'x Mohd. Afsar an. S/o. Mohad. Karim Khan, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Property Deaier, R/o Rajendra Nagar , BiTaspur, Tahsii and Dlstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys Umashankar Jaiswal, S/o Late Shri Sundar Lal Jaiswal, R/o Jarhabhata, Talapara Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Biiaspur (C.G.) -CR1MINAL REVISION UNDER 397 RW SECTIOii401 Cr.P.C, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the applicant. [12. Heard on admission. Seing aggrieved with the order dated 01.12.2001 passed in Crimina! Appeal No.57/2010 by the Sixth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur; the applicant has fiied this criminal revision. By the impugned order, an application for compromise filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been rejected bythe Appellate Court. The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the concerned Magistrate and jail sentence has been awarded to the applicant. Along with jail sentence, the applicant has been directed to deposit the specified r sa8!!>. CRIMINAL REVISSON N0.716/2011 amount of compensation in the order passed by Magistrate. The appiicant has filed the above appeal against the order passed by the concerned IViaaistrate, which is pendina for consideration. During the pendency of the appeai, an applicatlon for compromise was filed. The respondent filed reply to the said application and contended that the amount agreed to be paid by the applicant was not paid to the respondent and by giving assurance, signature was taken on the agreement, on which, the applicant has filed the compromise application. The learned Additional Session Judge in view of the above reply of the respondent rejected the application filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence. The tearned Additional Session Judge has taken the view that the applfcation for compounding the offence can be filed on the consent of both the parties i.e. the complainant and the accused and if either of them says that there is no consent for compromise or compounding the offence, the compounding would not be possibie. s I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Additiona! Session Judge. The revision has no merit. The same Is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dlsmissed summarily. —- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ shyna r