J.B. Koshy, J.

1. Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded after the confirmation of the conviction passed by the Magistrate Court, by the appellate court and High Court in revision ? Whether an order passed by the High Court in a criminal revision petition confirming the conviction can be nullified by the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties ? What is the effect of the non obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)' in Section 147 of the N.I.Act ? These are the main questions to be considered in this case. In Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) , it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that offence under Section 138 can be compounded even after confirmation of the conviction by the High Court in revision and considering the subsequent facts of compromise, necessary relief can be given in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court. Another learned Single Judge of this Court expressed doubt about the correctness of the above decision and thus referred this matter to the Division Bench.

2. Before answering the reference, we shall consider the facts of this case. A cheque issued by the accused for an amount of Rs.25,000/- was dishonoured for "insufficiency of funds" and he faced charges under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. After trial, he was convicted by the Magistrate Court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. His conviction was confirmed. In appeal but sentence was modified and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In revision application, this Court by order dated 23.3.2007, confirmed the conviction but sentence was modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter this petition was filed in May 2007 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused petitioner for the following reliefs: 1) to accept the compounding application jointly filed by the parties and (2) to return the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- already deposited before the Magistrate Court. In the joint petition by the parties (accused and complainant) prayer is as follows:

"In the above circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to compound the offence and acquit the 1st petitioner."

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Sabu George (supra) for allowing the petition. But Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that order of conviction became final by the order of the High Court and hence he cannot be acquitted in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and doubted the correctness of the above decision with the following observation:

"The legal effect of allowing this petition by invoking the inherent power of this Court would be to efface the conviction entered and sentence passed by this Court in Crl.R.P.667/2000 which in the normal course could have been interfered with only by the Supreme Court in appropriate proceedings. Apart from the fact that the consequence which is sought to be avoided by the accused is not one flowing from the proceedings of an inferior court, the course now sought to be resorted to appears to be impermissible in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Sankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (AIR 1970 S.C. 1). More over, a reading of sub sections 4 (a), 4 (b), 5 and 6 of Section 320 Cr.P would indicate that compounding can be had only in a pending proceedings and with the permission or consent, as the case may be, of the court even if the offence is one compoundable without the permission of the Court. In the case of offences falling under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. the very fact that those offences can be compounde