IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.591 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 11, 2011 M/S HARPREET RICE MILLS & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS KRISHAN CHAND .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Criminal Revision petition is directed against judgment dated 9.2.2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting the petitioner under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and order of sentence whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of ` 5,000/- (in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month) and judgment dated 4.3.2011, passed by the appellate court viz. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Patiala, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence have been maintained. 2 On 10.3.2011, the following order was passed:- “This is a petition against concurrent conviction Criminal Revision No.591 of 2011 (O&M) 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute relates to a cheque of ` 2,10,000/- dated 01.10.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact this cheque was not got issued on the basis of any dealing but was only given as a security and that the petitioner has filed civil proceedings for recovery against the complainant. He, however, states that without prejudice to his claim in the civil proceedings he is ready to make the payment of the cheque amount to the complainant. Notice of motion. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant and accepts notice. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that he has no objection in taking the cheque amount but considering the fact that the money is being given to the complainant after almost 9 years some interest should be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to document Annexure P-1 whereby in the year 2008 the petitioner had offered to give the entire amount but the complainant had refused. In my considered opinion the petitioner is liable to pay interest uptil this date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a very poor person and should be granted time to pay the interest. Resultantly, I hold that the draft of ` 2,10,000/- be handed over to learned counsel for the complainant in court and the amount of ` 75,000/- further be paid within the period of four months. This payment would be without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner. Adjourned to 11.07.2011 to enable the learned counsel to get the draft of the remaining amount. Criminal Revision No.591 of 2011 (O&M) 3 In this interregnum the sentence of the petitioner is suspended. He be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala.” 3 Demand draft bearing No.061627 dated 7.7.2011, in the sum of ` 75,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Jakhwali, payable to Krishan Chand (respondent), has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. On such payment, entire amount payable to the respondent under order dated 10.3.2011, which has been extracted above, has been paid. 4 In view of the above, this court invokes the provisions of Section 147, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which allows compounding of offence. 5 The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. The offence committed by the petitioner is hereby compounded in view of facts and circumstances given above. This shall, however, be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in civil proceedings. July 11, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?