Santokh Kumar vs Mohan Singh and Another

Jaswant Singh, J.

Crl.M. No. 38116/2010.

Prayer in the instant application is for preponing the date of hearing fixed in the main case bearing Crl.R. No. 827 of 2010.

Notice of the application.

Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1-complainant, whereas Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwal, learned AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent State.

Learned Counsel for the respondents state that they have no objection if the date of hearing is preponed and the case is taken up for hearing today itself.

In view of the above, with the consent of counsel for the parties listing of main case bearing Crl.R. No. 828 of 2010 is preponed and taken up for hearing.

Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M. No. 38117/2010.

Application allowed. Compromise deed dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure A1) and affidavit dated 20.7.2010 of complainant Mohan Singh (Annexure A2) are taken on record.

Crl.R. No. 828 of 2010.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against judgments and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by learned CJM, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Acts, 1881 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for one year along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month; as also the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

In brief, the allegations are that the petitioner-accused issued cheque dated 23.11.2005 amounting to Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent No. 1/Mohan Singh towards the discharge of debt liability. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonored whereupon after following the due procedure of law, complainant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Act against the petitioner which ultimately culminated into his conviction and sentence as noticed above.

During the course of hearing of the present Revision Petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had sought time to seek instructions as to whether petitioner was ready to pay the principal amount. Accordingly the case was adjourned to 30.9.2009.

Now Vide Compromise dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure A1) complainant and father of petitioner No. 1 have entered into a compromise in terms of which father of accused-petitioner has paid the principal amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant-Mohan Singh and in return Mohan Singh has no objection if petitioner-Santokh Kumar is acquitted in the present revision petition. In support of the said compromise, respondent-No. 2/complainant Mohan Singh has filed his affidavit (A2).

The legal position that the offence u/s 138 of the Act, in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, can be compounded even after the conviction, at the stage of revision is no longer res-integra. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of 2000 (1) OLR 400 (SC) , permitted the compounding of the offence despite conviction and sentence upheld at three stages after the convict had discharged his debt liability to the satisfaction of the complainant. Similar view was reiterated in Shailesh Shyam Parsekar v. Baban @ Vishwanath (2005) 4 SCC 162 and Rama Reddy v. Annapurna Seeds and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 632. Recently, Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2008(1) RCR (Cri) 249, has set aside the conviction and sentence recorded and affirmed upto the High Court and thereby acquitted the offender of the charges levelled against him in view of the matter having been compromised after discharging of the debt liability.

Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position and the fact that the debt liability of the petitioner stands discharged to the satisfaction of complainant-respondent No. 1, this Court is of the opinion that there is no legal impediment in invoking the powers u/s 147 of the Act and compounding the offence.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner u/s 138 of the Act, as noticed hereinabove, and the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

In view of the above order, Crl.M. No. 38115/2010 and 14115/2010 have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.