1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.610/2005 (Ramdas & Ors. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.) Date of order : 27.9.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, for non-petitioner. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.24/05 and criminal revision No.58/05 whereby he has modified the judgment dated 21.2.2005 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original case No.65/05 and while upholding the sentence of six months simple imprisonment passed by A.C.J.M. No.2, Jodhpur has directed payment of Rs.50,000/- as fine for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In this revision petition, the complainant- Bank has filed an application being SB Criminal Misc. Application No.439/2007 seeking permission to compromise and compound the offence. In the compromise, the Senior Manager of the Bank has been identified by his counsel Mr. J.S. Choudhary. It is contended by learned counsel for non-petitioner Bank that Bank has received the whole of the amount due from the petitioners and nothing is due to be recovered from the petitioners and voluntarily Bank 2 has compromised the matter with the petitioners. The petitioners are represented by their counsel Mr. Sandeep Mehta. The compromise filed by the parties was also verified today before Dy. Registrar (Judicial). The offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. Section 147 of the Act reads 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.” It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of Sessions acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. The relevant provision of sub- section (6) of Section 320 of the Code reads as under :- “320. Compounding of Office. - (6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to 3 compound under this section.” In the instant case, the Senior Manager of the Bank, who has filed an application is competent to compound the offence and he has compounded the offence, therefore, the parties are permitted to compound the offence. The effect of compromise is acquittal as envisaged under sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code, which provides that the composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The relevant provision of sub- section (8) of Section 320 of the Code is as follows :- “320. Compounding of offences.- (8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of trial Court dated 21.2.2005 passed in criminal Original Case No.65/05, which was modified by appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.7.2005 passed in Criminal appeal No.24/05 and Criminal Revision No.58/05 are quashed on the basis of compromise and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 4 138 of N.I. Act on the offence being compounded by complainant/non-petitioner. The misc. application stands disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun