NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, dated 21.4.2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to RI for one year and he was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,60,000 to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the revision petition, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. The affidavit of the complainant and the Compromise deed (Annexure P-l and P-2) have also been placed on record in this regard. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the affidavit of respondent admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affida vit, respondent has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted of the charge and the revision is accordingly allowed.
(3.) HON 'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Cochin Hotels Co.(P) Ltd. and others v. Kairali Granites and others reported as 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 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 reported as 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 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." ;