IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.2093 of 2009 Date of Decision:23.4.2010 Nishan Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 4.8.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, dated 3.2.2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Subsequently, during the pendency of the revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. As per the compromise, the petitioner is ready to pay the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. The said offer is accepted by the complainant. In this regard, complainant has made a separate statement before this Court today stating that the matter has been compromised and out of the total agreed cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-, he has received Rs.2,00,000/-. However, Rs.50,000/- are yet to be received as the same are deposited by the petitioner with the trial Court in pursuance to the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by this Court. He further states that in case, the said amount is released to him, he has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charge and the revision is accordingly allowed. In view of the said statement, an amount of Rs.50,000/- Crl. R. No.2093 of 2009 -2- deposited by the petitioner with the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, shall be released to the complainant forthwith. Thus, there is no doubt that the matter has been compromised as above. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reproduced as under: “147. Offence to be compoundable.- Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” 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 has relied 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. Accordingly, in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, statement of the complainant recorded separately, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 3.2.2007 which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 4.8.2009 is set aside and the petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, be released to respondent No.2-complainant forthwith Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 23.4.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE