- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.2.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, dated 11.2.2011 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 7 days.
(2.) During the pendency of the revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the affidavit of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager, The Faridkot Central Co-operative Bank Limited Branch Office admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, Bank has received the payment of Rs.42,700/- by way of demand draft from I.S. Brar Advocate counsel for the respondent/Bank and has deposited the above said amount in account No.0302.719.1859 which pertain to the petitioner namely Anil Kumar son of Tarsem Lal r/o Mohalla Sarafan, Faridkot. As such, respondent has no objection if the revision petition is accordingly allowed.Crl. R. No.654 of 2012 Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Cochin Hotels Co.(P) Ltd. and others v. Kairali Granites and others, 2006 2 RCR(Cri) 333, in some what similar circumstances, allowed the compounding of offence and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. Similar order was also passed by the Apex Court in the case of K Subramanian v. R Rajathi Rep. By POAP Kaliappan, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 184, in para 5 of the judgment, reads as under:- "The trial Court by judgment dated September 21, 2004 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 and sentenced him to Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2004 before Sessions Court which was dismissed on 24.12.2004. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.179 of 2005 before the Madurai bench of Madras High Court which was dismissed on January 30, 2008. Therefore, the petitioner filed SLP (Crl) No.6974 of 2008 @ CRL. M.P. No.14586 of 2008 which was also dismissed on September 11,2008. Thereafter, a compromise was entered into and petitioner claims that he has paid Rs.4,52,289/- to respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced affidavit sworn by him on December 1, 2008. The petitioner has also produced affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of Attorney holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs.4,52,289/- due under the dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value of cheques and he is not willing to prosecute the petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that the petitioner was arrested on July 30, 2008 and has undergone the sentence imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by Sessions Court, High Court as well as by this Court. The two affidavits sought to be produced by petitioner as additional documents would indicate that indeed a compromise has taken place between petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has accepted the compromise offered by petitioner pursuant to which he has received a sum of Rs.4,52,289/-. In the affidavit filed by the respondent a prayer is made to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and close the proceedings." Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reproduced as under: "147. Offence to be compoundable-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable."
(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 3 RCR(Cri) 61 whereby this Court has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of O.P Dholakia v. State of Haryana and another, 2000 1 SCC 762wherein the Apex Court was pleased to allow the accused and the complainant to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act despite conviction and sentence having been held by three Forums. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled.;