In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. 12409 of 2011 and Crl. Revision No. 2038 of 2002 Date of Decision: March 28, 2011 Sarwan Singh Lera ---Petitioner versus M/s Debonair Chits Private Limited and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.D.D.Chawla, respondent No. 1 in person with Mr. O.P.Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 2 *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The complaint-respondent No. 1 filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the petitioner-accused. According to the complainant, for discharging the previous liability, the accused issued Cheque No. 792459 dated 18.9.1997 for ` 1,03,400/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Mathura Road, Faridabad, which on presentment to the banker of the accused was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in his account and he failed to pay that amount of the cheque in spite of the issuance of the statutory notice. The accused was convicted for that offence by JMIC, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 28.11.2001 Crl. Revision No. 2038 of 2002 -2- and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, and while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of one year was reduced to 09 months, vide judgment dated 17.9.2002. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present revision. In the course of proceedings, application was filed by the accused for permission to compound the offence on the ground that a compromise has already been effected between him and the complainant. As per the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal)851, the accused was directed to pay 15% of the cheque amount as costs. Keeping in view the financial position of the accused, he was directed to pay half of that amount and according to him he has deposited ` 15,000/- in the Registry of this Court. Statement of the complainant has been recorded wherein he stated that he has already compounded the offence with the accused. As per Section 147 of that Act, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable. It is well settled that the offence can be compounded even in the revision. As a result of the composition, the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The fine, if already deposited, be refunded to him. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. Revision is disposed of accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 28, 2011 PARAMJIT