Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.09.2011 Parveen Mehta ....Petitioner V/s Raghav Mehta ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. AP Singh Luna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the respondent. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) 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 also directed to pay `2.00 lacs to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within one month after the expiry of the period of appeal or revision, if any or subject to the result of the same, failing which he shall pay penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount. Brief factual background of the case is that a complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent on the allegations that the petitioner took a loan of `2.00 lacs from him and in discharge of his liability, issued cheques No. 051901, 051902 & 051903 dated 20.02.2006 for `50,000/- each drawn on Indian Overseas bank. However, the said cheques were dishonored with the remarks ‘Insufficient Funds’ vide memo dated Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 2011 (O&M) 2 21.02.2006. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and also directed to pay `2.00 lacs to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within one month after the expiry of period of appeal or revision if any or subject to the result of the same failing which he shall pay penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount by Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2009 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide judgment dated 12.07.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent (complainant) and the complainant has agreed to settle the claim regarding the cheques in question with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already paid back the cheques amount to the respondent No. 2 as full and final settlement of his claim and in view of judgment reported as Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayeed Babalal, 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851, an amount of `22,500/- (15% of the cheques amount) has been deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh vide receipt No. 168518 dated 29.09.2011. Photocopy of receipt showing the payment of `22,500/- to Punjab State Legal Service Authority is placed on record as Mark ‘B’. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant affirms the assertion made by counsel for the petitioner regarding compromise. On the last date of hearing i.e. September 27, 2011, he had already filed an affidavit of the complainant in this regard which was 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 Criminal Revision No. 1629 of 2011 (O&M) 3 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 Ritesh Gupta vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(3) RCR (Crl) 61, 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. September 29, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE