IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.1459 of 2010 Date of Decision:30.7.2010 Sandeep Sharma .... Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Tarachand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7.5.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, District Jind, dated 6.8.2009 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. Notice of motion was issued on the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount towards the dishonoured cheque alongwith interest. Upon notice, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated on instructions that the respondent had no objection in compounding the offence if the amount towards dishonoured cheque alongwith interest was paid to him by the petitioner. Thus, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner has paid the entire amount towards the dishonoured cheque alongwith interest to the respondent in the Court. An affidavit of the respondent-complainant has also been placed on record stating that the matter has been compromised and he has received the entire amount towards the dishonoured cheque alongwith interest in the Court and he has no objection for compounding the offence. Crl. R. No.1468 of 2010 -2- Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is reproduced as under: “147. Offence to be compoundable.- Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” This Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another 2009(3) R.C.R (Criminal) 61 while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of O.P Dholakia v. State of Haryana and another, (2000) 1 SCC 762 wherein the Apex Court was pleased to allow the accused and the complainant to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act despite conviction and sentence having been held by three Forums, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled. Accordingly, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, affidavit of the complainant stating that he had no objection for compounding the offence in view of the amount received by him, the parties are allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 6.8.2009 as well as lower Appellate Courts' judgment dated 7.5.2010 confirming the sentence is set aside and the petitioner is accordingly acquitted of the aforesaid charge. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 30.7.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE