IMPORTANT POINT
Offence u/s. 138 N.I. Act is made compoundable by amendment in the Act which came in force on 6-2-2003 and such compounding could be permitted at revi-sional stage also irrespective of date of commission of offence or conviction by trial Court.

C.K. Buch, J.— This Court while issuing notice for final disposal on 13.1.2004, notice was made returnable on 28.1.2004. However, the matter has not been listed and so today, at the request of learned counsel Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner, papers of this matter are called from the Registry and matter is taken up for final disposal.

2.Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned APP Ms. Nandini Joshi for respondent No. 2 State. Respondent No. 1 complainant Mr. Rathi is also present in the Court and he waives service of Rule.

3.That the petitioner came to be tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of The Nego-tiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the N.I. Act) and by impug-ned Judgment and Order of sentence dated 31.1.2000 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 272/1997, and was sentenced to suffer S/I for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- I/d to undergo further S/I for 3 months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. The petitioner challenged the said Judgment and Order by filing Cri. Appeal No. 4/2000 in the Court of learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, and learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad, vide Judgment dated 28.11.2003 has dismissed the said Criminal Appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present Cri. Revision Application challenging both the afore-said impugned Judgments and Orders.

4.Earlier when this Revision Application was listed for admission hearing on 13.1.2004, a statement was made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the parties have settled the matter out of the Court and petitioner shall see that original complainant Mr. Rathi-respon-dent No. 1 appears before the Court on the next date of hearing and, therefore, as stated at the outset, this Court issued notice for final disposal making it returnable on 28.1.2004 and today the papers of Cri. Rev. Application are called for and matter is taken-up for final hearing.

5.Original complainant Mr. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi-respon-dent No. 1 is present before the Court. Ld. counsel Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner identifies him in the Court. Ld. counsel Mr. Dave has also placed on record a declaration made by complainant respondent No. 1 Mr. Rathi dated 9.1.2004 confirming the acceptance of an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh, which is taken on record. Mr. Rathi who is present in the Court also confirms that he has received an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and further confirms that he has compounded the matter- present case-out of the Court.

6.In view of above facts situation, learned counsel Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner accused prayed that accep-ting the say and the fact of settlement between the parties out of Court, parties may be permitted to compound the offence and consequently petitioner accused be acquitted.

7.My attention is drawn by lear-ned APP Ms. Nandini Joshi to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana & Anr.1, wherein the Apex Court, in exercise of powers vested in it under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, annulled the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. However, now the provisions of the N.I Act have been suitably amended by inserting Section 147 in the said Act and offence punishable under the provisions of the N.I. Act has been made compoundable. It has been submitted by Ms. Joshi that the amendment in the Act has come into force from 6.2.2003 and the date of the decision by the Sessions Court is 28.11.2003 viz. much later than the amendment coming into force and so it can be said that the parties could have compounded the offence at any time prior to the pronouncement of the Judgment by the Sessions Court in the appeal. Hence, the question is whether at this revisional stage, such compro-mise arrived at between the parties or compounding of the offence between the parties can be permi