JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, has been dismissed.

2. The factual background of the case is that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') was filed against the petitioner on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No. 720164 dated 30.11.2015 amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/-, issued in favour of the complainant/respondent No.l by the petitioner in discharge of his liability. Further, a legal notice was issued to the accused/petitioner but he has failed to make the payment within the stipulated time. The petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of NI Act vide summoning order dated 22.01.2016. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.07.2019, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.01.2025 and the learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction and confirmed the order of sentence.

On 03.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

'Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate has put in appearance and filed his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 1. Same is taken on record. Be tagged at the appropriate place.

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount of compensation in order to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has only brought a demand draft of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken to pay the entire compensation amount and the demand draft of only Rs. 1,50,000/- cannot be accepted.

In view the above, the matter is adjourned to 21.04.2025 for seeking instructions form learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether petitioner is ready to pay the entire compensation amount or not. '

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner handed over two demand drafts bearing Nos. 000042 and 000110 dated 19.03.2025 and 17.04.2025, amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,95,000/-, respectively, drawn in favour of respondent No.l, to counsel for respondent No.l in the Court today. Copies of the same have been placed on record and the Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the file. He further relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Gautam and another vs. Usha Rani (since deceased) through LRs, 2024(1) CriCC 564 to contend that once the compromise has been effected and the settled amount has been received by the complainant, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act can be compounded.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.l submits that the complainant/respondent No.l has received the entire settled amount and nothing is due towards the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.l has no objection if the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compounded and the petitioner is acquitted of the notice of accusation framed against him. He further submits that respondent No.l undertakes to withdraw the execution petition in civil suit filed by him for the amount in question in terms of the settlement.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner-accused has paid the entire