The court has the power to compound the offences even in cases where the accused stands convicted, and the accused can be directed to pay litigation charges to the complainant.

ORDER :

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 8.07.2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(CBI) Shimla District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.1-S/10 of 2021, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2020 and order of sentence dated 1.02.2020, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.4, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal case No.304-III/2019/16, whereby learned court below while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/-to the complainant for loss suffered by him.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.4, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that he is running business of hardware and paints in the name and style of M/s Bhodha Mull Khushi Ram. He alleged that accused, who is a Government contractor, purchased paints related items from him vide bill No.337, dated 18.02.2016, amounting to Rs. 1,12,002/-, but failed to make the payment within 15 days. He further alleged that with a view to discharge his liability, accused issued cheque No. 665277, dated 16.09.2016, amounting to Rs.1,22,557/- drawn on State Bank of India, Summer Hill, Shimla. However, fact remains that on presentation aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since, despite having received notice accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge(CBI) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 8.07.2021. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner-accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below.

5. Vide order dated 27.09.2021, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by learned court below, subject to petitioner’s depositing 15% of the cheque amount and furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Record reveals that aforesaid order stands duly complied with. Through, repeatedly matter came to be adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to make the balance payment, but every time petitioner failed to come present in Court on one pretext or other. However, today during the proceedings of the case, petitioner-accused has come present and handed over sum of Rs.70,000/- in cash to Sh. Prashant Maria partner of the firm.

6. Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since entire amount as awarded by learned court below has been paid by the petitioner-accused to the respondent-complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the petitioner-accused of the charges framed against him.

7. Mr. Aman So