The court can quash the conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the parties settle the matter amicably and compound the offence under section 147 of the Act.

1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant herein questioned the correctness and legality of the conviction imposed upon the applicant for the offence p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence inflicted upon him to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven lacs only) in default to suffer S.I. for four months and directed to pay amount of Rs.10.00 lacs to the complainant towards compensation out of the said fine amount by way of judgment and order dated 27.02.2009, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna in STCC No.3200/2004 and confirmation thereof by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal Appeal No.22/2009 dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicant by judgment and order dated 3.4.2012. (The parties herein after are referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused).

3. The complainant is the Estate broker and he was dealing with the business of commission agent. Accused was interested in purchase of agricultural land in Jalna city and accordingly accused expressed his desire to the complainant and asked to search the land for him. Accused also agreed to pay commission to the complainant in that respect. According to the complainant, he searched lands for accused and accused purchased land bearing S.No.125/1/A, 126/1/A, situated at Bhokardan Ring Road. He also purchased the lands bearing survey no.546/2 and 546/3 situated at Jalna Mantha road near Deulgaon Raja ring road and, also purchased land bearing S.No.273 situated within the municipal limits of Jalna. According to the complainant, accused agreed to pay commission of Rs.7,00,000/- for the aforesaid purchase of land S.No.125/1/A and 126/1/A and also agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards lands bearing S.N.546/2 and further agreed to pay commission of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purchase of land bearing S.No.546/3, 273. In all accused agreed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant towards commission. In order to pay the said amount of commission, accused issued a cheque No.347204 dated 21.09.2004 for Rs.10.00 lacs drawn on Jalna Peoples Cooperative Bank, Ltd Mondha Branch to the complainant. Accordingly, complainant presented said cheque on 21.9.2004 for encashment purpose through his banker, however said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. Hence, complainant issued notice to the accused on 4.10.2004 by RPAD and UCP. However, since accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque amount within stipulated period, complainant filed complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against accused.

4. Accordingly, process was issued against accused and accused appeared in the said complaint and furnished bail bonds. Plea of the accused was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial and particularly raised the defence that he had lost cheque on 17.1.2004 and informed his banker about loss of cheque and therefore, issued stop payment instructions. He had also lodged the police complaint in the police station. According to him subsequently, cheque was found by the complainant and same was misused by him. However, the defence of the accused was not accepted by the learned trial court and he was found guilty, and accordingly, was convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above by the judgment and order dated 27.2.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred criminal appeal No.22/2009 before learned Sessions Court, Jalna. However, same also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 3.4.2012. Hence, the applicant filed present criminal Revision application No.55/2012 questioning the correctness and legality of the said conviction and sentence a