IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.1490-91 of 2011 in Crl. R. No.3240 of 2010 Date of Decision:13.1.2011 Sher Singh .... Petitioner Versus Ram Parsad Jain .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M. No.1490 of 2011 Heard. The application is allowed and the present revision petition is preponed for today. Crl. M. No.1491 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Crl. R. No.3240 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana dated 19.2.2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days. Subsequently, during the pendency of the revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. As per the compromise, the respondent has received the entire amount as agreed between the parties. Compromise deed (Annexure P-1) has also been placed on record vide Crl. M. No.1491 of 2011. Crl. M. No.1490-91 of 2011 in -2- Crl. R. No.3240 of 2010 The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the affidavit of the respondent authenticating the compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondent has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charge and the revision is accordingly allowed. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised as above. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another 2009(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 61 whereby this Court set aside the order of conviction while relying 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. In view of the compromise and in view of well settled proposition of law, the present revision petition is allowed and 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 19.2.2008 which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 9.11.2010 is set aside and the petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The petitioner be released forthwith. Allowed in the above terms. 13.1.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE