1 appln417-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 417 OF 2010 Saurabh Jewellers Through its Proprietor Mr. Ashok N.Jain .. Applicant Versus Mr. Kailash Chimanlal Singhal and another .. Respondents Mrs. Daksha M. Shah for the Applicant Mr. S.M. Oka for Respondent No.1 Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31 st March, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This criminal revision application impugns the order of conviction dated 8.6.2005 which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi in Criminal Case No. 1329 of 2005 and maintained by the Appellate Court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . By the impugned order, the accused was directed to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and was also directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.75,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant informed that an amount of Rs.75,000/- and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- has already been 2 appln417-10 deposited in the Trial Court and the applicant has no objection for withdrawal of the said amount by the complainant, in full and final settlement of his grievance in the complaint case. On that basis the applicant accused urged for setting aside the impugned order directing simple imprisonment for one month. On this point, I heard learned counsel for the respondent-original complainant. He has also no objection in case the claim is really got satisfied and the said amount has been received by the complainant. He did not oppose the application for quashing the sentence. 4. Offence under section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act which reds as under: “147. Offences to be compoundable: _ Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act, shall be compoundable”. 5. Though it is not specifically mentioned at whose instance it is compoundable, as it is mentioned under the Criminal Procedure Code where the table is given stating sections and punishment, compoundable with or without permission, and by whom it is compoundable etc.. In my opinion, compounding is permissible even at the stage of the appeal. Offence under section 138 of hte N.I. Act, is not a regular but defined as deemed to have been committed offence. In that sense, it appears to be primarily a civil liability, however, a complaint can be made for an appropriate action 3 appln417-10 against a defaulter who did not brother to honour the cheques or its payment in time demanded by a notice which is primary requirement before filing such complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act. In that view of the matter, following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER 1. Criminal Revision Application is allowed. 2. The impugned order of sentence of jail term for one month is quashed and set aside. 3. The order of conviction is maintained to the extent of payment of fine amount of Rs.2000/- and amount of Rs. 75000/- payable to the respondent- original complainant. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )