Natvar Lal vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a revision petition against the conviction of the accused-Petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

(hereinafter referred to be as ""the Act""). The Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to

pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for one month.

A complaint was filed by the complainant-Respondent against the Petitioner on the allegations that the Petitioner issued a cheque No. 0011900

dated 25th April, 2007 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant-Respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient

funds in the account. A trial ensued. The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th October, 2009 and his appeal was also

dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 25th November, 2010.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the pendency of this revision petition, a compromise has been arrived at between the

Petitioner and Respondent (complainant), and the complainant has agreed to settle the claim regarding the cheque in question with the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has already paid back the cheque amount to the Respondent No. 2 as full and

final settlement of his claim and in view of judgment reported as Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayeed Babalal 2010 (2) RCR 851, an amount of Rs.

7500/- has been deposited with Punjab State. Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, vide receipt No. 168663 dated 10th December, 2010.

Photo copy of receipt showing the payment of Rs. 7500/- (15% of the cheque amount) to Punjab State Legal Service Authority is placed on

record as Mark ''B''.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent/complainant affirms the assertion made by counsel for the Petitioner regarding compromise. On the last

date of hearing i.e. December 07, 2010, he had already filed an affidavit of the complainant in this regard which was taken on record as Mark ''A''.

In view of the fact that offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable u/s 147 of the Act, the statement made by the complainant would amount to

withdrawal from prosecution as envisaged by Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure In such circumstances and in view of the judgment

rendered by this Court in Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Cri) 61, the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction

and sentence imposed upon the Petitioner for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act is hereby set-aside and the Petitioner is acquitted of the

offence for which he was convicted and sentenced.

The revision petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms.