Crl. Revision No. 2788 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2788 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 3, 2010 Paramjit Singh Ahluwalia ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Gian Singh-complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against Paramjit Singh Ahluwalia. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 16.01.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Paramjit Singh Ahluwalia under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said judgment and order were upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in appeal vide judgment dated 18.12.2008. Hence the present revision petition. The facts of the case in brief as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of its judgment reads as under :- " Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was Crl. Revision No. 2788 of 2008 2 filed alleging that accused took a loan of Rs. 5 Lacs from complainant and in order to discharge debt and liability, issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- dated 27.2.1998 in favour of the complainant, drawn at Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town Branch, Jalandhar. The said cheque was presented and on the presentation at Punjab & Sind Bank, P.S. Jain Complex, Jalandhar, it was returned with the remarks 'no account'. The complainant received the information on 20.4.1998 and a legal notice was issued on 4.5.1998, but even that accused failed to make the payment within the period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. Thus, an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been committed." Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that now during the pendencey of this revision petition, parties have entered into a compromise. The written compromise in original executed between the parties as well as the Special Power of Attorney, executed by Resham Kaur, have been placed on record. The complaint was filed by Gian Singh and he died duirng the pendency of the proceedings. Resham Kaur, widow of Gian Singh, thereafter was brought on record, being legal heir of deceased Gian Singh. Resham Kaur has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her son Davinder Singh. As per the compromise, Resham Kaur has received the entire cheque amount in question and has also received all the decretal amount in the civil case. The petitioner has handed over a draft of Rs.2 lacs to Resham Kaur and a cheque of Rs.75,000/- dated 30.03.2010 to Resham Kaur as full Crl. Revision No. 2788 of 2008 3 and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. Paramjit Singh Ahluwalia shall withdraw his civil case pending in the Appellate Court at Jalandhar as no dispute is left between the parties. A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney, executed by Resham Kaur in favour of her son Davinder Singh also reveals that Resham Kaur has received the amount in question and now no dues are pending against the petitioner. Admittedly, Resham Kaur is aged about 90 years and is unable to appear in the Court personally being bed-ridden and has, therefore, authorized her son to appear in this Court in connection with this case. Davinder Singh is present in Court in person along with his Counsel for respondent no.2 and has submitted that the matter in dispute has since been compromised and Resham Kaur has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted in this case. As per Section 147 of the Act, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Since the parties have entered into a compromise and now the respondent has received the entire payment in dispute, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgments of the courts below are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine deposited by the petitioner be treated as costs of proceedings. (SABINA) March 3, 2010 JUDGE Anand