IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 31 of 2011 In Stay Application No. 145 of 2010 Urgency Application No. 1394 of 2011 Rajendra Singh Panwar S/o Sri Shyam Singh Panwar R/o Main Bazar, Nagnath Pokhri District Chamoli, Uttarakhand .....................Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Lalita Bhardwaj W/o Late Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj R/o 170 Maniram Road, Rishikesh District Dehradun ………....….......Respondents Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri P.S.Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the respondent no.1/State. Shri Tapan Singh, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2010, passed by Additional 2 Session Judge, Rishikesh, in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2009, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay compensation of ` 7,20,000/- to the respondent no.2 (complainant). (3) Brief facts of the case, are that a Criminal Complaint Case No. 1089 of 2006, Smt Lalita Bhardwaj vs. Rajendra Singh Panwar was filed before special judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, relating to offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which it was alleged that the cheque for an amount of ` 7,20,000/ issued by the revisionist, was dishonored, when the presented before the bankers on the ground on insufficiency of funds. The complainant further alleged that after giving notice dated 25.10.2006 which was served on the revisionist on 28.10.2006, the criminal complaint was filed. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, found the revisionist guilty of the offence but sentenced to six months imprisonment and directed to pay fine of ` 5,000/. The trial court did not pass any order directing the revisionist to pay compensation. Aggrieved by said order dated 23.12.2008, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 38 of 3 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2010 by the Additional Session Judge, Rishikesh. (4) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this court to the proviso added to section 372 of Cr.P.C, vide Act No. 5 of 2009, and it is argued that the revision was not maintainable for the reason that the complainant could have filed an appeal under the new proviso. However, perusal of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 5 of 2009) shows that it is provided in sub section (2) of section 1 of the Amending Act that the provision contains in amending Act shall come into the force from the date notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette. It appears that the notification dated 30th of December 2009 was issued by the Government of India whereby Amendment made in section 372 of Cr.P.C came into the force with effect of 31st of December 2009. As such, this court finds no force in the argument that the revision was not maintainable in March 2009, when the same was filed. The modification in the order passed by the trial court, made by the Revisional court vide 4 impugned order dated 08.01.2010 is inconsonance with the provision contains in section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (5) For the reasons as discussed above the revision is dismissed. (Urgency Application No. 1394 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.18.04.2011 N.P