Revisional Court modifies judgment, acquits petitioner under Section 138 NI Act, accepts settlement, directs fund release.

The Revisional Court modified the judgment, setting aside the compensation direction while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties reached a settlement, with the respondent receiving additional funds and agreeing not to pursue the case further. The court allowed for setting aside convictions and acquitting the accused based on a compromise with the complainant, even at the appellate stage. Ultimately, the court accepted the compromise, acquitted the petitioner, and directed the released amount to the respondent after verification.

---

---

Issues:
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Compounding of offence at appellate stage, Waiver of costs in appropriate cases

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenged a judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and compensation. The Revisional Court modified the judgment, setting aside the compensation direction while upholding the conviction.

2. The complaint stemmed from two cheques issued by the petitioner to the respondent for jewelry items. During the revision, the parties reached a settlement, with the respondent receiving additional funds and agreeing not to pursue the case further.

3. The key issue was whether an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act could be compounded post-conviction. Referring to legal precedents, the court noted that the Supreme Court allowed for setting aside convictions and acquitting the accused based on a compromise with the complainant, even at the appellate stage.

4. Citing relevant cases like Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., the court emphasized that the spirit of Section 147 of the NI Act permits compounding of the offence, especially when parties agree to a settlement due to the petitioner's financial condition.

5. Drawing from Rajendra vs. Nand Lal, the court highlighted that costs could be waived in appropriate cases. Additionally, in K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed, it was clarified that compounding was permissible even at the appellate stage of proceedings under Section 138.

6. Ultimately, considering the settlement between the parties and the respondent's willingness to accept the agreed amount as full settlement, the court accepted the compromise. Both lower court judgments were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The deposited amount was directed to be released to the respondent after verification.

---