Petitioner Acquitted in Section 138 Case, Compounded Offence under Section 147

The court acquitted the petitioner of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the parties settled the dispute by payment of the disputed amount. Relying on legal precedents, the court invoked its power under Section 147 to compound the offence, setting aside previous judgments and directing the petitioner to deposit costs for acquittal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Settlement and payment of the disputed amount.
4. Legal precedents and powers of the court to compound offences at various stages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, for dishonour of two cheques, each amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, leading to the present revision petitions.

2. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court considered whether the case could be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows for the compounding of offences under the Act notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant provision states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable."

3. Settlement and payment of the disputed amount:
During the proceedings, the petitioner expressed willingness to settle the matter by paying the principal amount of the cheques. The respondent accepted this offer, agreeing not to press for interest on the due amount and to have no objection to the matter being compounded. The petitioner subsequently handed over the entire disputed amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant via two demand drafts. The fine imposed by the trial court had already been deposited.

4. Legal precedents and powers of the court to compound offences at various stages:
The court referred to several judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which upheld the power to compound offences under Section 147 at any stage of the proceedings, including trial, appeal, or revision. Notable cases included:
- K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P Mohammed & Another: The Supreme Court allowed compounding even after conviction affirmed up to the High Court, emphasizing that Section 147 has an overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.: The court highlighted the compensatory nature of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the importance of mutual settlement.
- Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore: It was held that compromise strengthens mutual relationships and aligns with the spirit of Section 147.

Conclusion:
In light of the settlement between the parties, the court invoked its power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence. The impugned judgments by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate First Class were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. The petitioner was directed to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Bar Clerks Association. If the petitioner was confined in jail, he was to be released forthwith.

Order:
The petitions were allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted based on the compounding of the offence, subject to the payment of costs.

---