JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2019 passed in Criminal Complaint No.1208 of 2018, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6,80,650/- to the respondent-complainant and has further imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- as Court fine and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; as well as judgment dated 16.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed.

2. The case came up for hearing on 16.11.2021, when the counsel for the petitioner conveyed his readiness to comply with the payment of compensation as well as the cheque amount. The relevant part of the order is extracted as under:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to comply with the directions of the payment of the amount/compensation as directed by the Courts below to the complainant and the bona fide of the petitioner may be adjudged from the fact that out of Rs.6,80,650/-, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs,1,20,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal before the Courts below which amount has already been released in favour of the complainant and for the rest, a DD of the amount of Rs.5,55,000/- has already been prepared in the name of the complainant for his payment and therefore, the petitioner prays for compounding of the offence.

3. The matter thereafter came up for hearing on 25.11.2021, when the amount stood remitted to the respondent-complainant. The relevant part of the order is extracted as under:-

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent accepts two Demand Drafts totalling to Rs.5,55,000/-, in terms of the fine/compensation awarded by the Ld. JMIC, Panipat in her Judgment dated 8th-9th January, 2019.

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further prays for an adjournment to seek instructions from the Petitioner regarding payment of the requisite Compounding Fees as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.', 2010(5) SCC 663.

4. The petitioner thereafter also deposited the amount towards litigation expenses and Court fine as imposed.

5. On resumed hearing, counsel for the petitioner has submitted the entire amount of payment of cheque and also the expenses and penalty imposed stands deposited.

6. Sh. Surinder Singh Virk, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent-complainant and has acknowledged receipt of the entire amount. He has further made a statement at the Bar that respondent-complainant has no objection to the offence being compounded as payment in question has already been made.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already deposited the amount of the cheque with the respondent-complainant, hence, the case in hand be permitted to be compounded as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant provisions of the Act reads thus:-

147 Offences to be compoundable. -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.

8. The issue regarding compounding under the Negotiable Instruments Act at the stage of appeal as well as revision has come before this court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they have upheld that the powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings i.e. at the stage of trial, appeal or at the revisional jurisdiction and that the courts should be liberal in exercising such powers.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P Moha