Final revisional conviction cannot be reopened by later compromise; Section 147 does not override procedural finality under the Code.

An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be compounded after conviction has been finally confirmed in revision, because compounding under Section 320 CrPC operates only within the stages and manner permitted by that provision and requires a pending proceeding. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes cheque dishonour offences compoundable, but it does not displace the procedural scheme of Section 320 or the finality bar in Section 362 CrPC. The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to reopen or neutralise a concluded revisional judgment on the basis of a later compromise. The earlier contrary view was overruled to that extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded after conviction has been confirmed in revision by the High Court; (ii) whether Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act overrides the procedural scheme of Section 320 and the bar of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so as to permit recourse to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after final disposal of the revision.

Issue (i): Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded after conviction has been confirmed in revision by the High Court.

Analysis: Compounding is distinct from mere compromise and, once a conviction has attained finality after disposal of the revision, there is no pending proceeding in which composition can be accepted. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits composition only at the stages and in the manner specifically provided thereunder, and its sub-sections contemplate composition during trial, appeal, or revision, not after the revisional court has become functus officio. The composition of an offence has the effect of acquittal, and that consequence cannot be produced after the conviction has already become final without a pending proceeding.

Conclusion: The offence cannot be compounded after the conviction has been finally confirmed in revision.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act overrides the procedural scheme of Section 320 and the bar of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so as to permit recourse to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after final disposal of the revision.

Analysis: Section 147 makes offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable, but the non obstante clause only removes the prohibition against compounding offences outside the tables in Section 320 and does not eliminate the procedural framework of the Code. Section 320 still governs the manner and effect of compounding, while Section 362 prohibits review or alteration of a final judgment except for clerical or arithmetical corrections. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to override an express statutory bar or to reopen a concluded revisional judgment on the basis of a later compromise.

Conclusion: Section 147 does not authorise the High Court to nullify a final revisional conviction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The petition for compounding and consequential relief could not be entertained after the revisional judgment had attained finality, and the earlier contrary view was overruled to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A final criminal revisional judgment cannot be reviewed, altered, or neutralised on the basis of a subsequent compromise through Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not displace the procedural requirements and finality bar contained in the Code.

---