1. Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 15.12.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’), whereby learned appellate Court has confirmed judgment dated 13.05.2009, rendered by Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). The learned trial Court, by its verdict dated 13.05.2009, indicted accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘Act’) and handed down sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment. Besides imprisonment, the learned trial Court has also ordered that accused-petitioner should pay compensation to the complainant to the tune to Rs.46,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but that effort did not fructify to his advantage as the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal. This sort of situation has necessitated filing of this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now rival parties have sorted out their dispute and compromise has been arrived at. With this positive assertion, learned counsel has urged that both the impugned judgments be annulled and sentence handed down by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663].

3. Learned counsel for the complainant, while acknowledging the compromise arrived at between the parties, would urge that looking to the nature of offence and in the wake of settlement of dispute between rival parties, the conviction recorded by learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court merits annulment.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

5. Chapter XVII of the Act deals with penalties in case of dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts. A complete procedure in this behalf is provided under Section 138 to 147 of the Act. Section 142 deals with cognizance of offence and Section 143 empowers a Court to try cases under Section 138 of the Act summarily. As per Section 147 of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. While it is true that the offence is compoundable but a pivotal question, which has emerged for consideration, is whether revisional powers can be exercised by this Court to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act after conviction of the petitioner by appellate Court.

6. In Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), Supreme Court has examined the provisions of Section 138 and 147 of the Act threadbare and observed that compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. The Court observed that Section 147 of the Act, being an enabling provision, it can serve as exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-sec.(9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The Court, while laying emphasis on non-abstante clause under the aforesaid Section, further held that Section 147 inserted by way of amendment to special law will override the effect of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. The Court approved compounding of offences at a later stage of litigation in cheque bouncing cases. Finally, the Court framed certain guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties, who unduly delay compounding of the offences and proposed certain percentage of cheque amount to be deposited with Legal Services Authority.

7. At this stage, it would be just and appropriate to take note of the fact that the petitioner has surrendered before the learned trial Court. It is also relevant that both the parties have entered into compromise and same has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) in presence of counsels appearing for the rival parties