Crl. Rev. No. 2168 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 2168 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Chand Singh ...Petitioner Versus Krishan Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karam Singh Aulakh, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent. 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 compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- to defray the amount of cheque and other expenses undertaken by the complainant to prosecute him. The petitioner was also burdened with cost of litigation of Rs.1000/-. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner issued a cheque No.0423223 for Rs.2,50,000/- on 4.12.2002 out of his account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rampuraphul in favour of the respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul and conviction was upheld by the appellate court. Crl. Rev. No. 2168 of 2009 2 Today, learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. He submits that Krishan Lal 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 Krishan Lal wherein he has stated that he has received the full and final payment from 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 07, 2009 'rajpal'