LEELA DHAR Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-convict herein was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short). After holding the trial he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation. In appeal learned Sessions Judge, Mandi has affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner- convict and dismissed the appeal vide judgment under challenge in this petition. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that the findings of his conviction recorded in contravention of the evidence available on record are perverse, hence not legally sustainable. Anyhow, this Court need not to go into all factual details nor ponder upon the admissibility of the evidence available on record because during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner-convict has settled the matter with the respondent-complainant consequent upon the settlement so arrived at the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the latter.

(2.) A joint application under Section 142 of the Act has been filed with a prayer to record the compromise and the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner-convict by both Courts below be quashed and set aside.

(3.) As a matter of fact consequent upon the compromise having been arrived at between the parties an application under Section 147 of the Act with a prayer to allow the respondent-complainant to compound the offence should have been filed. Anyhow, treating the present application to be the one under Section 147 of the Act, I allow the compounding of the offence by the respondent-complainant, of course, subject to payment of the costs in the light of the judgment of this Court in Dhiraj Singh and others Vs. M/S Suriti Enterprises, 2013 2 LatestHLJ 1120 (HP) in which while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babal, 2010 5 SCC 663, it has been held that the compounding of the offence though is permissible even in the Appellate Court also, however, subject to payment of costs.