Crl. Revision No.1920 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAT AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1920 of 2010 Date of Decision:-01.10.2010 Karan Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Ms. Kavita & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. S.K. Lamba, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar for respondents. *** JASWANT SINGH, J(ORAL) Present revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the learned JMIC, Faridabad whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short “the Act”) and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-; further prayer is for quashing order dated 06.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal filed against order dated 12.1.2010 was Crl. Revision No.1920 of 2010 # 2# dismissed on merits. In brief the allegations are that the petitioner-accused in order to discharge his liability issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- in favour of complainant firm, which on presentation was dishonoured. Thereafter complaint was filed wherein the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused as aforesaid. During the course of hearing before this court on 31.8.2010 it was stated by the petitioner that the parties are ready for one time settlement and thus compounding of the offence. Today widow of the proprietor-Satbir of complainant-firm have filed her affidavit Mark-A wherein she has stated that she has received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as full and final settlement and she along with her minor children will not claim any amount in future in respect to cheque no.576023 dated 2.1.2003. She further stated that she has no objection if the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and the offence compounded as she had received the entire payment towards full and final payment of the dispute. She also recognize her signatures on the affidavit Mark-A and her statement to this effect has also been separately recorded. The legal position that the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, can be compounded even after the conviction, at the stage of revision is no longer res-integra, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Dholkia Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2000(1)SCC 762 permitted the Crl. Revision No.1920 of 2010 # 3# compounding of the offence despite conviction and sentence upheld at three stages after the convict had discharged his debt liability to the satisfaction of the complainant. Similar view was reiterated in Shailesh Shyam Parsekar Vs. Baban @ Vishwanath (2005)4 SCC 162 and Rama Reddy Vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr.(2005)10 SCC 632. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) has set aside the conviction and sentence recorded and affirmed upto the High Court and thereby acquitted the offender of the charges levelled against him in view of the matter having been compromised after discharging of the debt liability. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position and the fact that the petitioner has discharged his entire debt liability to the satisfaction of the complainant-respondent no.1, this court is of the opinion that there is no legal impediment in invoking the powers under Section 147 of the Act and compounding the offence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated 12.1.2010 of conviction and sentenced recorded by the learned trial court and the appellate order dated 06.07.2010 dismissing the appeal on merits are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 01st October, 2010 Vinay