1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 712 of 2024 Decided on : 22.3.2025 Jalam Singh …Petitioner Versus Jagdish Chand …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood, Ms. Shipra Thakur and Ms. Heena Bhardwaj, Advocates. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Jalam Singh has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 5.7.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 168/Cr. 2 A./10 of 2022, titled as, ‘Jalam Singh vs. Jagdish Chand’. 2. By way of judgment dated 5.7.2024, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 20.10.2022 and order of sentence, dated 28.10.2022, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Cr. Case No. 292/3 of 2021, titled as, ‘Jagdish Chand vs. Jalam Singh’. 4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the complainant. 3 5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 969 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded. 6. The petitioner has stated on oath that the matter has been settled with the respondent, with regard to cheque No. 000001, dated 23.9.2019, for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-, drawn on UCO Bank, Gata Mandwatch, District Sirmour, H.P. He has deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 47,600/- before the learned trial Court. 7. The petitioner has given undertaking to deposit the compounding fee, within 10 weeks, failing which he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence. 4 8. The respondent/complainant has made statement, on oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner, in his statement, recorded today. He has prayed that a sum of Rs. 47,600/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, be released in his favour. Lastly, he has stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of 6% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, 5 and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within ten weeks, from today. 10. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the applicant shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge March 22, 2025 (Kalpana)