The main legal point established is that the court has the power to review its own judgment and compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even after upholding the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, who stands convicted of his having committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in criminal Case No. 260-III/17/13, Gurdass Ram v. Het Ram, for compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Act.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent No.1 instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the court of learned JMFC-3, District Mandi, H.P. alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque amounting to Rs. 2,60,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation to the bank concerned, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 31.3.2018, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the respondent/complainant.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi, District Mandi, HP., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.8.2019. Petitioner accused further laid challenge to the aforesaid judgment before this Court in Cr.R. No. 214 of 2020, which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 9.11.2022, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld.

5. After passing of the judgment dated 9.11.2022 passed by this Court thereby, dismissing the criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioner-accused, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner-accused has paid the entire amount of compensation to the respondent and in this background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding of offence.

6. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to receipt of entire amount of compensation paid by the petitioner contends that since respondent complainant has already received the entire amount of compensation awarded by the court below, respondent shall have no objection in case prayer made for compounding the offence is accepted and petitioner is acquitted of the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. Though parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them as is evident from the statement of learned counsel for the respondent, but now question which requires to be decided at the first instance is “whether this court after upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the court below can proceed to review its own judgment dated 9.11.2022, whereby criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioner accused came to be dismissed or not?”.

8. This Court vide judgment passed in Cr.MP No. 1197 of 2017 in Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015 titled Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma, while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted. Relevant portion of the order passed by this court in order supra is reproduced as under:

“8. Before acceding to aforesaid joint request having been ma