Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable under Section 147 of the Act, and the High Court or a Court of Sessions can permit compounding of an offence in an appropriate case under Section 320(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

P.K. Lohra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay.

2. As per office report, the instant revision is reported to be barred by 831 days.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted in unison that inspired by concept of Lok Adalat, parties sorted out their dispute and have entered into compromise.

4. It is also stated at bar by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that he has received Rs. 52,000/- from petitioner for settlement of the matter perpetually.

Considering the fact that all offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable under section 147 of the N.I. Act, the embargo envisaged under sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot be invoked in the instant case.

5. In view thereof, I feel persuaded to accept application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.

7. Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 to challenge judgment dated 07.10.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), confirming conviction and sentence awarded by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court').

8. At the threshold, while adjudicating complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act, learned trial Court indicted petitioner for offence under section 138 of the NI Act and vide its judgment dated 04.06.2012 handed down sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- to be payable to complainant as compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C., 1973

9. Feeling dismayed with the judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but the effort so made by petitioner did not fructify to his advantage and the learned appellate Court rejected the appeal.

10. Arguing on this revision petition, it is submitted by learned counsel that though both the Courts below have convicted petitioner for offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act but at this stage parties have sorted out their dispute and settled the matter perpetually. In support thereof, an application bearing No.481/2018 is also preferred by the petitioner for compounding offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act incorporating the factum of compromise.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has very candidly submitted that he has accepted amount of Rs. 52,000/- and in the wake of changed circumstances now complainant is not interested to pursue the matter.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the application containing recitals about settlement of dispute between the rival parties.

13. While it is true that an offence which is proved against an accused by concurrent finding of two Courts cannot be compounded dehors the provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C , 1973but then sub-section (6) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 envisages a provision that High Court or a Court of Sessions, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, can permit for compounding offence in an appropriate case.

14. In the instant case, the offence against the petitioner is under section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 147 of the N.I Act postulates with clarity and precision that all offences under the N.I. Act are compoundable. The sections starts with a non obstante clause. section 147 of the NI Act reads as under:-

"147. Offences to be compound able-Noth with standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable."

15. Supreme Court, in case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663], has examined entire scheme of the N.I. Act, more particularly, offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act, and opined in clear and unequivocal terms that r