IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001 Date of Decision: January 31, 2009 Madan Mohan alias Mohinder Mohan Parbhakar ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ravi Dhaliwal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG Punjab Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for the complainant Sabina, J. Petitioner – Madan Mohan alias Mohinder Mohan Prbhakar was convicted under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 28.7.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana and vide order of the even date was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and imposed fine of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 13.7.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “In nut shell, the prosecution case is that Hindustan Bicycles Tubes Pvt. Ltd. is owned by Hindustan tyres company. This company has been carrying on business of bicycle and auto tyres and tubes having branches all over India including at Kanpur for sale of its products. Accused Madan Mohan was appointed as Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001 -2- Manager at Kanpur on 10.3.73. He was required to promote the sale of products of company and to collect the price of the goods supplied by the company to varius customers from time to time and then send the same to Head Office at Ludhiana. Accused was required to account for the amount so collected. That when it came to notice of the company that amounts were due/outstandng against firms of area of Kanpur, then enquiries were made which revealed that accused had collected the amount to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs but had not accounted for the same to the Head Office thereby embezzling the amount. The accused had confessed his guilt by way of furnishing of an affidavit promising to repay the amount but he did not do so, which resulted in formal FIR being registered against him. The accused was arrested in this case. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected documents, recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused was filed in the Court.” During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure A1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has admitted the contents of the compromise deed. A perusal of the same reveals that the dispute between the parties was amicably settled with the intervention of the friends and well wishers. Complainant would have no objection, if the offence in question was compounded Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in view Crl Revision No. 1029 of 2001 -3- of the compromise deed (Annexure A1), the parties may be allowed to compound the offence. The submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is liable to be allowed in view of the compromise deed (Annexure A1). Accordingly, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him as the offence has been compounded. ( Sabina ) Judge January 31, 2009 arya