1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R (1) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.813/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (2) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.814/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (3) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.815/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (4) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.816/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (5) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.818/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (6) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.819/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (7) S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.820/2007 (Indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 17/03/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Rakesh Arora for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Rathi, public prosecutor for the State. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat for the respondent No.2 complainant. BY THE COURT:- All these criminal revision petitions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) involve common question of 2 law and facts and between the same parties assailing the judgment and orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeals No.27/06, 31/06, 28/06, 33/06, 29/06, 32/06 and 30/06, therefore, are heard and being decided together. In all these cases, the respondent No.2 complainant Baga Ram filed complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) before the Judicial Magistrate, Balotra (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) being Criminal Case No.467/98, 474/98, 468/98, 243/04, 469/98, 475/98 and 473/98. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner by judgment and orders dated 18.8.2006. The petitioner preferred appeals against the orders of conviction and sentence in all the cases noticed above. The appellate court dismissed the appeals in all the cases. Hence these revisions. During the pendency of the revision petitions before this Court, the complainant respondent No.2 Baga Ram appeared before this Court and filed applications being Cr. Misc. Application No.601/08, 600/08, 599/08, 598/08, 597/2008, 596/08 and 602/08 and sought permission to compound the offence and compounded the offence by entering into a compromise with the accused petitioner. The complainant respondent No.2 filed a compromise before this Court in all these 3 cases and same have been verified by Registrar (Administration) today i.e. 17.3.2008. The complainant appeared before me also and made a statement that he has received the cheque amount and settled the dispute with the petitioner and there remains nothing outstanding after having received the entire amount due under the cheques in all the cases noticed above and therefore, he may be permitted to compound the offence. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Section 320 of the Code provides compounding of offence. Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 of the Code provides that when the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard. Sub Section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that a High Court or court of session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section. Sub section (8) of Section 320 of the Code provides that the composition of an offence under this section 4 shall have an effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. Thus, the applications filed by the complainant respondent No.2 seeking compounding the offence deserve to be allowed and he is allowed to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 07.08.2007 & 08.08.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Appeals No. 27/06, 31/06, 28/06, 33/06, 29/06, 32/06 and 30/06 as also the orders dated 18.8.2006 passed by the trial court are hereby set aside. Petitioner Indra Singh S/o Pratap Singh is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on the offence being compounded by the complainant in Criminal Case No.467/98, 474/98, 468/98, 243/04, 469/98, 475/98 and 473/98. The petitioner is on bail. The bail bonds filed by the petitioner are discharged. The Criminal Misc. Applications being Cr. Misc. Application No.601/08, 600/08, 599/08, 598/08, 597/2008, 596/08 and 602/08 also stand allowed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp