P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 9th of May, 2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge before Anopgarh Camp-Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has confirmed judgment dated 20th of June, 2014, rendered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by its verdict dated 20th of June, 2014, indicted accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act') and handed down sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. Besides imprisonment, the learned trial Court has also ordered that accused-petitioner should pay compensation to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the tune to Rs.3,50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but his that effort did not fructify to his advantage and the learned appellate Court dismissed his appeal. This sort of situation has necessitated filing of this revision petition.
(2.) Mr. Hemant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that rival parties have sorted out their dispute during trial but compromise could not be materialized. It is also argued by learned counsel that during pendency of appeal, substantial outstanding amount was paid by petitioner to complainant and later on, despite verdict of learned appellate Court, remaining amount is also paid and then parties have entered into compromise inspired by the concept of Lok Adalat. With all these positive assertions, learned counsel has urged that both the impugned judgments be annulled and sentence handed down by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court be set aside.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that although offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable but after verdict of learned appellate Court, it may not be appropriate to grant indulgence to petitioner.;