- (1.) Prayer in this criminal revision petition is for setting aside the judgment, dated 11.2.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner No. 1, Rajan Dhanda, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act'), was dismissed.
(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell are that M/s Pkincy Knitwears through its proprietor, Rajan Dhanda (petitioner No. 1), had purchased gold vide Invoice No. 8, dated 8.4.1997, for a sum of Rs. 2,06,526.20 paise, plus Sales Tax amounting to Rs. 4,543.58 paise, total Rs. 2,11,069.78 paise, on credit basis, from M/s Anupam Jewellers, Ludhiana, through its proprietor, Jai Raj Jain. In order to discharge the liability, the petitioner issued Cheque No. 359491, dated 31.6.1999, drawn on Union Bank of India, Ludhiana, in favour of M/s Anupam Jewellers, Ludhiana. The said cheque bounced and, hence, after completing the formalities of issuing notices etc., a complaint was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Upon conclusion of the trial, petitioner No. 1, Rajan Dhanda, was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act by the learned Trial Court and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, besides payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Petitioner No. 1, Rajan Dhanda, challenged the verdict of conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by filing an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed, hence, the present criminal revision petition, challenging the judgments of both the Courts below.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that during pendency of the present criminal revision petition, respondent No. 2-complainant has effected a compromise with the family members of petitioner No. 1, Rajan Dhanda. He further submits that the disputed cheque amount has been paid to respondent No. 2-complainant. He further submits that a compromise has been effected between the private parties. He further submits that the petitioners had a business dealing with respondent No. 2-complainant and due to shortage of money, the amount was deficit in the bank and, therefore, the cheque had bounced. He further submits that Section 147 of the Act permits compounding of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.;