Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Ashwani Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl.AG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner stands convicted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner is further required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of two months. The petitioner had obtained loan of ` 20,000/- from the complainant for his personal need. The petitioner agreed to pay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per annum. On 07.10.1998, the petitioner came to the office of the complainant and apprised him that he had sufficient funds lying in his account and cheque would be encashed when presented. The cheque, however, was returned dishonoured on 07.10.1998 with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. It is Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2003 (O&M) 2 stated that the petitioner intentionally and willfully issued the cheque knowing fully well that no amount is lying in his account. Accordingly, the complainant was filed by the complaint under Section 138 of the Act which led to the conviction of the petitioner and award of sentence, which he has now challenged through the present revision petition. When this revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on 14.10.2003, the same was admitted and sentence imposed on the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner was released on bail and has continued to remain on bail. Now the application has been filed by the petitioner to place on record the compromise deed dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) whereby he has settled with the complainant. The complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he has received sum of ` 25,000/- vide two pay orders bearing Nos. 349502 dated 09.11.2011 and 349504 dated 11.11.2011 drawn on South Indian Bank Limited, Phagwara. The complainant, thus, does not wish to pursue his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant has also come present before the Court in person. I have spoken to him and the complainant has confirmed that he indeed has compromised with the petitioner and would have no objection if the present revision petition is disposed of on the basis of this compromise. There is no bar, which would stand in the way of this Court to permit compounding at this stage while exercising revisional jurisdiction by invoking inherent powers coupled with revisional powers to do the substantial justice. If any authority is needed for this then reference can be made to K.M. Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2003 (O&M) 3 Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammed and another, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 595. This was a case where the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings had concluded before the Appellate Forum, when parties moved an application under Section 147, seeking compounding of offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the parties have settled their disputes and compounding of offence under Section 138 at the appellate stage is not barred by Section 147, offence was permitted to be compounded and the conviction was set-aside. Even in the case of O.P.Dholakia Vs. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 638; (2000) 1 SCC 762, the compounding was permitted on the basis of compromise. While taking this view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further noticed that object of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which would not in strict sense of terms apply to proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said Section with or without leave of the court and also vests the Court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By virtue of sub-section (8), the legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be compounded. As observed, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is amended with the similar object and analogy has accordingly been drawn as to the intention of the legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Although the same has not been expressly mentioned in amended Section to a proceeding under Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2003 (O&M) 4 Section 147 of the aforesaid Act. Since the parties have compromised and basically it was the dispute relating to dishonour of cheque, where liability was not discharged by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to invoke jurisdiction and permit compounding of the offence. The necessary consequences of this would be that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner would call for interference. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner shall stand acquitted of the charge for which he was convicted and sentenced. December 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE