IMPORTANT POINT
Offence can be compounded even at appellate stage.

Ravi Nath Verma, J.—The present revision application is in respect of the litigation involving the offence enumerated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Ray, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as the learned counsel representing the State.

3. It is not necessary to delve into the facts leading up to the institution of proceedings before this Court; as the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute and have filed a joint compromise petition before this Court with a prayer to compound the offence as contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. However, a brief statement of facts is necessary for the proper appreciation.

At the instance of present complainant-opposite party no.2- Vishwanath Mahato, a complaint petition was filed on the allegation that the present petitioner issued two cheques for sum of rupees one lakh each in favour of opposite party no.2 being the proprietor of Rajdhani Traders in order to discharge the legal enforceable liability but when the two cheques were presented in Bank, the same bank returned both the cheques along with a returned memo on the ground of insufficient funds in the account. Thereafter, information was given to the petitioner but he preferred not to respond whereafter legal notice was also sent followed by a demand notice but finding no way as the petitioner failed to discharge his liability, this case was filed.

4. It appears from the record that the aforesaid case was instituted under Section 138 of the Act and Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by order dated 24.03.2009 against the petitioner and after accusation of substance explained to the petitioner, the trail commenced and after examination of the witnesses, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also directed the petitioner to pay a fine of Rupees two lakhs and the said fine amount shall be payable to the opposite party by way of compensation with default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge-XIIth, Ranchi but the appeal was dismissed with a certain modification in the sentence directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rupees three lakhs under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the opposite party no.2 within 30 days of the said order and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause. The Appellate Court further held that compensation amount has been enhanced in lieu of punishment of imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred this revision application.

5. Apparently, the parties were involved in commercial transaction whereafter the disputes had arisen on account of the dishonour of the two cheques issued by the petitioner. The parties went through several stages of litigation and before this Court, they have settled their disputes and filed the joint compromise petition. In the case of O.P.Dholakia Vs. State of Haryana; (2000) 1 SCC 762, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had permitted the compounding of the offence even though the conviction of the petitioners of that case had been upheld by all the courts after noting that the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Taking into consideration the nature of the offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused has already entered into a compromise, we think it appropriate to grant permission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to compound.”

6. The similar issues were also involved in Siva Sankaran Vs. State of Kerala and another; (2002) 8 SCC 164 and Sailesh Shyam Persekar Vs. Baban; (2005) 4 SCC 162 and in all thos