Criminal Revision No. 481 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 481 of 2006 Date of Decision : 16.3.2011 Rajneesh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant-Respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated February 17th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kurukshetra upholding the judgment of conviction dated September 17th, 2004 and order of sentence dated September 18th, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, whereby, petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'N.I. Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 2. The cheque in question was issued by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of Narinder Kumar- complainant-respondent No.2, Proprietor of M/s. N.K. Timber, Shop No.4, Partap Mandi, Shahbad (M), District Kurukshetra. During the pendency of revision, the petitioner proposed to compromise the matter with the complainant in the manner that he shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (cheque amount) along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated from November 22nd, 2000 Criminal Revision No. 481 of 2006 2 upto 22 May 2011 or the date of payment, whichever is earlier, before the trial Court. The proposal has been accepted by Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. 3. In 'Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Limited' 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 249, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the compromise entered between the parties in view of Section 147 of N.I. Act and the primary object underlying Section 138 and acquitted the accused/appellant. 4. In view of provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act and law laid down in the aforesaid authority, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal. Resultantly, the revision is accepted and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set-aside and he is acquitted. 5. In case the petitioner does not deposit the amount, the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below will revive and the trial Court shall take the petitioner in custody and send him to jail to serve the remaining part of his sentence. 6. On deposit of payment, the trial Court shall issue notice to Narinder Kumar-complainant-respondent No.2 and disburse the amount to him after due verification. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.3.2011 SN