Crl. Rev. No. 1446 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No. 1446 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.9.2009
Subhash Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a revision petition against the conviction of the
accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). The petitioner has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a
fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for 15 days.
A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent
against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner issued a
cheque No.0278080 dated 15th May, 2004 for Rs.30,000/- 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.2000/- by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Bathinda, vide judgment/order dated 30th September, 2008 and his
appeal was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide
Crl. Rev. No. 1446 of 2009 2
judgment dated 9th May, 2009.
Today, learned counsel for the respondent has put in
appearance. He submits that Satpal complainant/respondent is present
in court and is duly identified by him. According to the counsel, a
compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the
respondent-complainant. Learned counsel has placed on record an
affidavit of complainant Satpal wherein he has stated that he has settled
all the claims regarding the cheque in question with the petitioner. The
affidavit filed by the complainant-respondent is taken on record as
Mark ‘A’.
In view of the fact that offence under Section 138 of the
Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act, the statement made
by the complainant would amount to withdrawal from prosecution as
envisaged by Section 321 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances and in view of
the judgment rendered by this court in Crl. Rev. No.929 of 2009 titled
‘Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another’, decided on 6th May, 2009,
the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed
upon the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 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.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 10, 2009
‘rajpal’