The court has the power to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 even after the conviction of the petitioner by the appellate court, as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dated 21.09.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has confirmed judgment dated 19.05.2011, rendered by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.2 Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by its verdict dated 19.05.2011, 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.80,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but his that effort did not fructify to his advantage and the learned appellate Court dismissed his 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.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that although offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable but after verdict of learned appellate Court, it may not be appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner.

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

5. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

6. Chapter XVII of the Act deals with penalties in case of dishonor of certain 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 deal 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. The legal position in this behalf was fluid until the judgment rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663] by the Supreme Court. In the said verdict, 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. While discussing object of Section 138 of the Act, the Court held:

"However, there are some larger issues which can be appropriately addressed in the context of the present case. It may be recalled that Chapter XVII comprising Section 138 to 142 was inserted into the Act by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988). The object of bringing Section 138 into the statute was to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. It was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing