Crl. Revision No.3282 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3282 of 2009(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: November 21, 2011 Ajay Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Madan Lal & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sivia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kataria, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Three drafts bearing Nos.752361-752363 payable at State Bank of Patiala in the name of respondent- Madan Lal has been handed over to the counsel for respondent No.1 in the Court. Counsel for respondent No.1, accordingly, has accepted the drafts and submits that he will not have any objection, if the present revision is allowed or disposed of in terms of the compromise and on the ground that the petitioner has discharged the entire liability. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,(for short 'the Crl. Revision No.3282 of 2009(O&M) -2- Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner has impugned this order by way of present revision petition. When the case came up for hearing on 29.3.2011, two months time was given to the petitioner by granting interim bail to enable him to arrange the funds necessary to repay respondent No.1. Counsel for the respondents at that stage had also stated that it would be in the interest of justice to grant time to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on interim bail on deposit of fine of `50,000/- with the registry of this Court. Another sum of `50,000/- was paid through two demand drafts as was noticed by this Court in its order dated 18.8.2011. Thus, the petitioner, by then, had paid a sum of `1 lacs. Except payment of interest, the remaining liability stood discharged. Counsel for the petitioner had then undertaken to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the cheque amount from the date of issuance of the cheque. On 18.8.2011, this Court allowed the petitioner to make arrangement for payment of the interest as well as it was in the interest of justice. The petitioner, however, did not discharge the interest liability as per his undertaking. On 17.10.2011, this Court had noticed that the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground as the petitioner has violated the undertaking given before this Court. The case was adjourned as the arguing counsel for the petitioner was not available. Another request was made to discharge the Crl. Revision No.3282 of 2009(O&M) -3- liability of interest in two instalments, but the Court was not inclined to grant this request, but still had adjourned the case to 17.11.2011 with the concurrence of the parties. Counsel for the respondents has now agreed to accept a sum of `70,000/- as interest and as a full and final payment. The petitioner was, accordingly, given time to make arrangement for this amount. It is in this background that the petitioner today has paid a sum of `70,000/- by way of three demand drafts as noticed above. That being the position, it is now to be seen as to what should be the fate of this revision petition. Out of the imprisonment of two years awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone eight months and 25 days. Normally the payment of amount due, would not exonerate the petitioner of his criminal liability, but considering the fact that offence under Section 138 of the Act was alleged for which the petitioner is imposed this sentence and the fact that he has discharged his entire liablily along with interest, some consideration need to be shown to the petitioner on account of sincere effort on his part. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage has also expressed his apprehension that some of the cheques given by him are still with respondent No.1 and that those may also be presented for encashment. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that no such cheque is available with him and even if any cheque is lying with him, he shall not present that cheque for encashment. It appears that the petitioner has suffered enough. He has also discharged entire liability. To permit compounding at this stage, support can be had from Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Crl. Revision No.3282 of 2009(O&M) -4- Babalal H., 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 851, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the method to discourage the litigation by permitting compounding of offences:- (i)If the accused made an application for compounding of offences at first or second hearing of the case then compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused. (ii)if the application is made before Magistrate at a subsequent stage, accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (iii)If application is made before Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal compounding may be allowed on payment of 15% of the cheque amount. (iv)Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. (v)The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. (vi)Any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. Thus, the compounding after imposing the costs has been permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is recognised method. There is no dispute that the compounding at the stage of revision can also be permitted under Section 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Since the parties have compromised the issue, the compounding in this case can be permitted. The principle underlying under Section Crl. Revision No.3282 of 2009(O&M) -5- 320(8) Cr.P.C. has been recognized by Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases had permitted the compounding of offence by invoking the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. Thus, compounding in this case can be permitted in view of the facts and circumstances as noticed. As a result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside. November 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE