Manjeet Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 Heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay.

As per office report, the instant revision is reported to be barred by 831 days.

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted in unison that inspired by concept of Lok Adalat, parties sorted out their dispute and have entered into

compromise.Â

It is also stated at bar by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that he has received Rs.52,000/- from petitioner for settlement of the matter

perpetually.

Considering the fact that all offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the embargo

envisaged under sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the instant case.

In view thereof, I feel persuaded to accept application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.

Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 07.10.2015,

passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’), confirming conviction and sentence awarded by

Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) Sriganganagar (for short, ‘learned trial Court’).Â

At the threshold, while adjudicating complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, learned trial Court indicted petitioner for offence under Section 138

of the NI Act and vide its judgment dated 04.06.2012 handed down sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- to be

payable to complainant as compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C.

Feeling dismayed with the judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but the effort so made by petitioner did not

fructify to his advantage and the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal.

Arguing on this revision petition, it is submitted by learned counsel that though both the Courts below have convicted petitioner for offence under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act but at this stage parties have sorted out their dispute and settled the matter perpetually. In support thereof, an

application bearing No.481/2018 is also preferred by the petitioner for compounding offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act incorporating the

factum of compromise.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has very candidly submitted that he has accepted amount of Rs.52,000/and in the wake of changed

circumstances now complainant is not interested to pursue the matter.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the application containing recitals about settlement

of dispute between the rival parties.

While it is true that an offence which is proved against an accused by concurrent finding of two Courts cannot be compounded dehors the provision of

Section 320 Cr.P.C but then sub-section (6) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. envisages a provision that High Court or a Court of Sessions, while exercising

revisional jurisdiction, can permit for compounding offence in an appropriate case.Â

In the instant case, the offence against the petitioner is under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 147 of the N.I Act postulates with clarity and

precision that all offences under the N.I. Act are compoundable. The sections starts with a nonobstante clause. Section 147 of the NI Act reads as

under:-

“147. Offences to be compundable- Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under

this Act shall be compoundable.â€​

Supreme Court, in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663], has examined entire scheme of the N.I. Act, more

particularly, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and opined in clear and unequivocal terms that remedy provided under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act is compensatory and not punitive and therefore in case parties are agreeable for settlement, Court can also encourage this sort of effort of the

parties so that matter can be resolved perpetually. The factum of compromise between rival parties is not in dispute but then it has come in offing

after a lapse of fourteen years from the date of lodging of complaint by the complainant and during the interregnum, trial proceeded for almost eight

years, and then for three years matter remained pending before the learned appellate Court. While examining this aspect of the matter, Supreme Court

in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) observed that, while compounding offence at the appellate stage or revisional stage, accused may be asked to part with

some money as contribution towards the Legal Aid in appropriate cases.

Mr. DS Thind, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that he is espousing the cause of petitioner as an amicus curiae inasmuch

as petitioner and his entire family is in penury condition and are unable to pay anything as contribution towards Legal Aid. Mr. Dhind has further

submitted that petitioner has arranged requisite amount of Rs.52,000/- after borrowing the money from others and therefore, in the backdrop of his

financial condition at least he may be given some reprieve to the extent of contribution towards Legal Aid.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the

condition of depositing some percentage of the amount of disputed cheque is hereby waived in the interest of justice. Thus, in view of the settlement

between rival parties conviction recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court is hereby annulled which entails his acquittal

for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Petitioner is in custody and therefore he may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.