Crl. Rev. No. 1445 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 1445 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Subhash Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Munish Bansal, 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 (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for two months. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner issued a cheque No.0277053 dated 20th September, 2003 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, vide judgment/order dated 12th September, 2008 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide Crl. Rev. No. 1445 of 2009 2 judgment dated 9th May, 2009. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. He submits that Vishal Gupta 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 respondent-complainant. Learned counsel has placed on record an affidavit of complainant Vishal Gupta wherein he has stated that he has settled all the claims regarding the cheque in question with the petitioner. The affidavit filed by the complainant-respondent is taken on record as Mark 'A'. 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 Crl. Rev. 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 convicted and sentenced. The revision petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 10, 2009 'rajpal'