Crl. Rev. No. 1332 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 1332 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2010 M/s Shobhu Dyeing & Tent Works and another ...Petitioners Versus Hardam Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for one month. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioners on the allegations that the petitioners issued a cheque No.038659 dated 27th September, 2006 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide judgment/order dated 4th December, 2009 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 15th Crl. Rev. No. 1332 of 2010 2 April, 2010. Today learned counsel for the respondent submits that Hardam Singh complainant/respondent is present in court and is duly identified by him. According to the counsel, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel has placed on record an affidavit of complainant Hardam Singh wherein he has stated that he has settled all the claims regarding the cheque in question with the petitioner. The affidavit filed by the complainant-respondent is taken on record as Mark 'A'. In view of the fact that offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act, the statement made by the complainant would amount to withdrawal from prosecution as envisaged by Section 321 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances and in view of the judgment rendered by this court in Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 61, the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is hereby set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced. The revision petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 20.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No