The court cannot review a signed judgment under Section 362, Cr.P.C., and applications for compounding post-conviction are non-maintainable.

1. Applicant Hariman Negi has filed the present application in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2009, which has been decided by this Court on 26.07.2016, for the following relief: -
"It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken and the offence under S.138 of the negotiable instruments act 1981, judgments passed by the ld. JMIC, Court No.2 Rohru, Distt. Shimla in case No. 13/3 of 2005, dated 13.03.2006 and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Shimla (Camp at Rohru) in case No.16 - R / 10 of 2008/06, and further revision No. 120/2009 dismissed by this Hon'ble Court and SLP (Crl) No. 006481/2018, dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. May kindly be ordered to be compounded in the interest of equity and fair play."

2. Perusal of the record of Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2009 shows that the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act') by the learned JMFC, Court No.2, Rohroo, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') vide judgment dated 13.01.2006. Vide order of sentence of the even date passed in the said case, the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under S.138 of N.I. Act.

3. The said judgment of conviction has unsuccessfully been assailed by the accused before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in criminal appeal No. 16 - R / 109-02/06 in case titled as Hariman Negi vs. Parma Nand.

4. Against the said judgment, the accused has preferred Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2009 before this Court, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 26.07.2016.

5. Against the said judgment of this Court, the accused has preferred Special Leave Petition, Diary No. 20899 of 2018, in which, following orders were passed on 30.07.2018: -
"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) has been deposited by the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner is a daily wager.
Let the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- before the trial court, within a period of one month from today."

6. Thereafter, on 07.01.2022, following orders were passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: -
"As prayed, four weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) before the trial Court.
List the matter after four weeks."

7. However, on 17.03.2023 the SLP preferred by the accused has been dismissed.

8. Now, the present application has been filed for compounding the offence. In such situation, the first and foremost question, which arises for determination by this court is whether the prayer, so made in the application, can be accepted at this stage.

9. The nature of proceedings under S.138 of the N.I. Act has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex in Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corpn. Ltd., Secunderabad v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd. and another 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 739, para - 6 : (AIR 1996 SC 2339) of which is reproduced as under:
"Shri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that stoppage of payment due to instructions does not amount to an offence under S.138 and that, therefore, the ingredients in S.138 have not been satisfied. We find no force in the contention. The object of bringing S.138 on statute appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transac