Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at any stage, including post-conviction, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the law over punitive measures.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. S. Karthick Balan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also this Court has taken the assistance of Mr. A. Gopinath, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

2. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed in C.A. No. 21 of 2021 dated 18.03.2022 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C. No. 509 of 2018, dated 07.11.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 1 at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore.

3. The learned trial Judge has convicted the Revision Petitioner/accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of six months and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of judgment, in default, to undergo SI for two months. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was also confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the Revision petitioner/accused obtained a loan from the respondent/complainant based on a pro-note and to discharge the same, the Revision Petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 006423, dated 16.02.2018 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited (now HDFC Bank), Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore in favour of the respondent. When he respondent presented the cheque for collection with his Banker viz. Corporation Bank, Narasipuram Branch, Coimbatore on 16.02.2018, the same was returned with an endorsement “No such account” vide return memo dated 19.02.2018. Therefore, the respondent issued a statutory notice dated 09.03.2018 calling upon the Revision Petitioner to pay the cheque amount within 15 days. The Revision Petitioner received the notice on 10.03.2018 and thereafter he did not repay the cheque amount. Hence the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the Revision Petitioner/accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 509 of 2018.

5. After recording the sworn statement of the respondent and after being satisfied that prima facie case has been made out to proceed further against the Revision Petitioner for the offence under section 138 of NI Act, the trial Court has issued summon to the Revision Petitioner. On the appearance of the Revision Petitioner, copies have been furnished and the substance of allegation has been put to him. The Revision Petitioner has denied the allegation and has claimed to be tried.

6. After considering the arguments, the learned trial court has found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Revision Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of judgment and in default, to undergo a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Revision Petitioner has preferred the appeal before the learned IV Additional district and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 21 of 2021 and the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore has suspended the sentence of Simple Imprisonment till the disposal of the appeal.

8. Thereafter, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2022 by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 509 of 2018 and it directed to secure the Revision Petitioner to undergo the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the both courts below, the Revision Petitioner has pr