S. No.250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRR No.2390 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:09.10.2025 Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner Vs.

The Dirba Primary Co. Operative Agriculture Land Development Bank Limited .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2025 passed by ld. Additional Session Judge, Sangrur in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2019 – Jarnail Singh Vs. The Dirba Primary Co-operative Agricultural Land Development Bank Limited, vide which appeal instituted against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam in Criminal Complaint No.108 dated 06.09.2017 vide which revisionist was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year besides payment of fine of Rs.8,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, was dismissed and the judgment passed by Ld.

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam was upheld and affirmed.

2. Power of Attorney has been filed on behalf of the respondent and the same has been taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on file.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year besides fine of Rs.8,000/- on account of dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.4,37,500/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on the previous date, he had produced photocopy of one demand draft issued by PNB in the sum of Rs.4,40,000/- and thereafter, notice of motion was issued to the respondent- complainant and today learned counsel for respondent has appeared and original demand draft amounting to Rs.4,40,000/- has been handed over to him. Learned counsel further contended that the revisionist may be permitted to get the offence compounded in view of recent directions issued the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 1158- Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Another as he has paid the entire cheque amount and he is also ready to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of cost before the authority as may be directed by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has also not opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for revisionist and prayed that orders be passed accordingly.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari’s case (supra), relating to compounding of offences under Section 138 of NI Act, has issued fresh guidelines in modification of guidelines earlier issued in the judgment reported as (2010) 5 SCC 663 – Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. and has observed as under:-

“38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view that it is time to ‘revisit and tweak the guide- lines’. Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines of compounding are modified as under:-

(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.

(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronounce- ment of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or a H