Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2009 Ritesh Gupta ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs.1,40,000/- to discharge legally enforceable liability. However, on presentation, the cheque was returned by the bank on the ground of insufficient funds in the account. Thus, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. However, the appellate court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence and dismissed the Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 2 appeal. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition for setting- aside his conviction and sentence by the courts below. When the case was taken up for hearing on 24th April, 2009, the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 by way of two demand drafts. The order passed on the said date reads thus: “Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has brought two demand drafts for Rs.95,000/- & Rs.45,000/- bearing numbers 859619 & 740820 (respectively) dated 20.4.2009. Mr. Vij appearing for respondent No.2 states that the complainant-respondent No.2 is ready to accept both the drafts. The same have been handed over to him in Court today. He further submits that in view of this payment, the complainant does not want to prosecute the instant complaint and is ready to compound the offence. The complainant has submitted an affidavit Mark 'A' in Court in this regard. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court shall remain suspended during pendency of the revision petition. He is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar.” Today when the case has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have submitted that in view of the payment made on 24th April, 2009, Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 3 they may be allowed to compound the offence. Reliance has been placed on judgments reported as G. Sivarajan Vs. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (2) DCR 408 and Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel Vs. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi and another, 2005 Crl. L.J. 431 to contend that offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is compoundable even at the revisional stage in view of provision contained in Section 147 of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. In judgment of the Apex Court reported as O.P. Dholakia Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 762, 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 upheld by three Forums. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled. After the judgment in O.P. Dholakia's case (supra), Section 147 was inserted in the Act, which reads thus: “147. Offence to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 4 It is thus clear that a specific provision is now incorporated in the statute permitting the parties to compound every offence punishable under the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision leaves no room for doubt that the complainant can make a statement before the court that he is ready to compound the offence. The effect of such a statement would be akin to that of withdrawal from prosecution. Thus in case of compounding of offence as envisaged by Section 147 of the Act, the conviction and sentence of accused would have to be set-aside. In the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the parties in G. Sivarajan's case (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- “3. The respondent-complainant who is represented through his counsel has filed an affidavit stating that his claim has since been settled and he has no objection if the matter is compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Having perused the judgments and the contents of the affidavit filed by the complainant, we are satisfied that this is a case which could be compounded. The sentence imposed by the two Courts below is set aside. We permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.” The judgment of Gujarat High Court in Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel's case (supra) is on the similar lines. Under the circumstances, the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner for offence Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2009 5 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 May 06, 2009 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No