Crl. Rev. No. 1403 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 1403 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 31-7-2009 Harbans Lal Janeja Petitioner Versus Dev Dutt Khanna Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. AS Gill Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajan Gupta, J. Petitioner Harbans Lal Janeja has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”), vide judgment dated 4-1-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for one month. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated May 6, 2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition The case was registered against the petitioner on the allegations that he had taken a loan from the respondent and agreed to return the said amount in December 2004. On request of the accused/petitioner, extension in time to return the loan amount was granted twice. When the complainant presented the cheque for Rs.50,000/- to the concerned bank, it was Crl. Rev. No. 1403 of 2009 2 dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted & sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, as already indicated above. His conviction was upheld by the appellate court. On July 29, 2009, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted at the very outset that a draft of Rs.60,000/- (i.e. Rs. 10,000/- over and above the amount, which was subject matter of the dispute) had been brought to the Court for payment to the complainant. Today, learned counsel for respondent submits that Dev Dutt Khanna, complainant/respondent is present in court and is duly identified by him. According to the counsel, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent. Learned counsel has placed on record an affidavit of the complainant, wherein he has stated that he has received an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards full & final settlement of the dispute. A draft of Rs.60,000/-, photo copy whereof is Mark 'A', has already been handed over to the complainant. The affidavit filed by the complainant is taken on record as Mark 'B'. In view of the fact that offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act, the statement made by the complainant would amount to withdrawal from prosecution, as envisaged by Section 321 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances and in view of the judgment rendered by this court in Criminal Revision No.929 of 2009 titled 'Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another', decided on 6th May, 2009, the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is hereby set- aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence for which he was Crl. Rev. No. 1403 of 2009 3 convicted and sentenced. The revision petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 31, 2009 'ask'