Crl. Revision No. 2161 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2161 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Rakesh Mahendroo ........Petitioner Versus N.D. Nagpal and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 in person alongwith Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act'). The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 2.2.2009 convicted the petitioner for an offence under Sections 138 of the Act. Vide order dated 4.2.2009 petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 138 of the Act and to pay compensation to the tune of ` 20 lacs (Twenty lacs) to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 21.7.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. Crl. Revision No. 2161 of 2010 (O&M) 2 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him as now the petitioner has paid ` 8 lacs to respondent No.1 as full and final settlement of the claim. Respondent No.1 is present in person alongwith his counsel and has stated that he has no objection if the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Respondent No.1 has further submitted that he does not want to claim compensation amounting to ` 20 lacs as ordered by the trial Court to be paid to the complainant as he is satisfied with the amount of ` 8 lacs paid by the petitioner. Keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Since the complainant has stated that he does not want to claim ` 20 lacs as compensation as ordered by the trial Court the petitioner is not required to pay the compensation amount to the complainant as ordered by the Courts' below. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) December 16 , 2010 JUDGE Anand