1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 471 of 2022 Decided on : 1.9.2025 Narpat Ram …Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank, Karsog …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Narpat Ram has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 8.6.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2022/2020, titled as, ‘Narpat Ram versus Punjab National Bank’. 2 2. By way of judgment dated 8.6.2022, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. 3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 22.9.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Complaint No. 66/2015, titled as, ‘Punjab National Bank, Karsog versus Narpat Ram’. 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. 2,00,000/- to the complainant. 5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the 3 parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact has been demonstrated from Cr.M.P. No. 3553 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 appeared before this Court today and stated, on oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent-Bank, with regard to cheque No. 452252 dated 30.6.2015 and now, nothing is due against him. 7. The petitioner has further deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the learned trial Court. 8. The learned vice counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement. Lastly, she has stated that she has instructions to state that the respondent- 4 Bank has no objection, in case, the amount deposited by the petitioner, with the Registry of this Court and the learned trial Court, as referred to above, is refunded in favour of the petitioner, and the present petition is allowed by acquitting the petitioner from the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No.3553 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 10. In view of the above, 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 15% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the petitioner/accused with the 5 Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within eight weeks, from today. 11. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner, with the Registry of this Court and Rs. 20,000/-, with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be refunded back to the petitioner by remitting the same to his saving bank account, particulars of which are mentioned in Cr. M.P. No. 3553 of 2025. 12. 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 petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court. 6 13. 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 September 1, 2025 (Kalpana)