- (1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.11.2009/19.11.2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to undergo sentence for a period of one year and also directed him to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant as compensation as well as the judgment dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent company filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging therein that the petitioner took a loan from the respondent company and in discharge of his liability, he issued the cheque No. 278532 dated 16.2.2008 for a sum of Rs. 47,392/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Amritsar but the above mentioned cheque was dishonoured on 22.2.2008. After recording of the evidence, learned Special Magistrate, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 5.11.2009 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for one year and also directed him to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence. However, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar.
(2.) Now, the petitioner and respondent company have entered into compromise and the petitioner paid the entire amount due to the respondent. To the same effect, Nikhil Malhotra, authorized agent of the company has filed his affidavit, stating therein, that the company has received the full and final settled amount from the petitioner and has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted and his conviction is set aside.
(3.) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Cochin Hotels Co. (P) Ltd. and Others v. Kairali Granites and Others, 2006 4 BankCas 345 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 SLT 25 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 (Cri) 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.;