Rajan Gupta, J.@mdashThis is a revision petition against the conviction of the accused-petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to be as "the Act"). The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for three months.
2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner issued a cheque No. 007985 dated 17th October, 2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant-respondent. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. A trial ensued. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, vide judgment of conviction dated 25th February, 2010 and order of sentence dated 26th February, 2010 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 28th May, 2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent (complainant) and the complainant has agreed to settle the claim regarding the cheque in question with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a draft of Rs. 1,10,000/- has been brought to the court and the same is acceptable to the respondent (complainant) as full and final settlement of her claim and in view of judgment reported as Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayeed Babalal, 2010 (3) R.A.J. 180 : 2010 (2) RCR (Crl.) 851, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been deposited with Haryana State Legal Services Authority, vide receipt No. 0000691 dated 23rd August, 2010. Photo copies of receipt showing the payment of Rs. 15,000/- (15% of the cheque amount) to Haryana State Legal Service Authority and the draft of Rs. 1,10,000/- are placed on record as Mark ''A'' and Mark ''B'' respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that he has instructions to receive the draft and the draft was handed over to him in court today itself and in token of its receipt, his signatures have been obtained on the photo copy of the draft i.e. Mark ''B''.
5. In view of the fact that offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable u/s 147 of the Act, the statement made by the complainant would amount to withdrawal from prosecution as envisaged by Section 321 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances and in view of the judgment rendered by this court in Ritesh Gupta v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Cri) 61, the plea of the parties is accepted. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act is hereby set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced.
The revision petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms.
