Convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at any stage, including after the conviction has been upheld by the appellate court.

JUDGMENT

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 are present.

2. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that a compromise has been arrived between the complainant and accused through compromise deed dated 13.9.2023, which is apprised to District Judge, Aligarh and he has been informed that same is to be verified by the court below pursuant to order dated 6.9.2023. A report has been filed by the Registrar General of this Court dated 23.9.2023 wherein it is stated that in compliance of order dated 6.9.2023, parties have filed original compromise before the District Judge, Aligarh and a report dated 22.9.2023 has been received from District Judge, Aligarh containing a report regarding verification done by Presiding Officer, Aligarh.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2019 ( Kaushalpal Singh v. State of U.P. ) arising out of judgement and order dated 22.12.2017 passed by A.C.J.M., court no. 6, Aligarh in complaint case no. 354 of 2013 (Anil Kumar Singh v. Kushalpal Singh), under section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Qwarsi, District Aligarh by which the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under section 138 of N.I. Act for one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- with default stipulation.

4. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether at this stage of the proceedings when the revisionist has already been convicted by the trial court and his conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court, the offence under section 138 of NI Act can be compounded. The issue is no longer res integra. In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Apex Court while laying down guidelines as to the levy of costs depending upon stage of the compromise arrived at between the parties, held that conviction of an accused in proceedings under section 138 of NI Act can be set aside even at appellate stage and the accused can be acquitted on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. It is held in para 21 as follows:

"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed :

The Guidelines

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque am