1 Cr.Apln.353/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.353 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8530 of 2005 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.244 of 2004 M/s.Fame Construction & ors. ... Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Shailesh Redekar and D.T. Mandviwala & Co. for the applicants SmtM.H.Mhatre APP for the State. Mr.Satyam Acharya for respondent no.2. CORAM : N.D. DESHPANDE,J DATED : 29th October 2010 P.C. 1. Applicant nos.2 and 3 – partners of accused no.1 firm are all present. They are represented by M/s.Mandviwala & Co. Original complainant is present with his counsel Shri Acharya. Accused have preferred an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence dated 2 Cr.Apln.353/10 2nd July 2004 passed by 3rd Joint District Judge and Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2003. The learned 3rd Extra Joint District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the appeal partly and reduced the sentence from 1 year to three months. Earlier, accused were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. Three lakhs. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and fine and reduced the sentence from one year to three months. These accused have filed this petition u/s.397 of the Cr.P.C and impugned the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence. Now the parties, both original complainant and accused are before this court informing that they have settled their dispute and should be permitted to compound the offence though they were held guilty and convicted by the trial court and First Appellate Court, as well. 2. Today, they have filed joint purshis signed by both the parties and respective counsel of the parties in forming that they have settled the claim in terms of the consent terms and the minutes which are taken on record. Consent terms are marked “X” for identification. Verified the consent terms. Both the accused and complainant agree to the consent terms. 3 Cr.Apln.353/10 3. The offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a compoundable offence and even could be compounded after conviction is ordered. Primarily, it is a dispute of liability and failure to discharge the liability which is evident from bouncing of a cheque. This offence u/s.138 is deemed to have committed an offence and not an offence defined in Indian Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no element of criminal intention or any dishonest intention. The provisions u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made punishable only when there is disrespect or disregard to the issuance of cheque despite the intimation is given to the party who is under obligation to discharge the liability for the amount in cheque within the stipulated period. As such, parties shall be at liberty to get their dispute settled even at any stage even after they have been held guilty. 4. In that view of the matter, application for condonation of delay and application for restoration of Criminal Revision Application No.244 of 2004 are allowed and disposed of. So also, the revision application is allowed in terms of the consent terms which is marked “X’ The accused before the Court, the accused no.1 and accused no.3 are hereby acquitted. The impugned judgment and conviction of both the Courts below is quashed and set aside. 4 Cr.Apln.353/10 5. All accused are hereby acquitted since compounding amounts to acquittal u/s.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it shall have an effect of the acquittal of the accused. Applications and revision application are disposed of. 6. The complainant respondent no.2 shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.75,000/- which is lying as deposit in this Court as per the consent terms in para no.(3). (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)