S.K. Mishra, J.
1. The matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.
2. In this revision the petitioner assails his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in ICC No. 557 of 2007 and the confirming judgment of the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No. 65 of 2008.
In short, the case of the complainant is that the accused is. a friend of the complainant. He was facing financial loss in business because of super-cyclone in the year 1999 and then he approached the complainant for financial assistance to revive his units and because of the good relationship, the complainant gave a total sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- on different dates. An agreement was executed between them on 17.9.2004 wherein it was stipulated that in total a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- would be paid by the accused to the complainant to meet the principal and interest component. An further agreement was executed on 27.6.2005 and in due compliance of the terms and conditions of the two agreement as averred above accused issued a cheque bearing No. 11920 dated 25.12.2005 drawn on the Urban Cooperative Bank, Dolamundai Branch to meet the above outstanding dues and the complainant presented it through his bank i.e. UTI Bank Limited, Badambadi for clearance on 30.5.2006. The cheque bounced because of insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused. On 1.6.2006, the complainant issued the statutory notice to the accused for making the payment of the dues. But after receiving the notice, the accused did not agree to pay the amount and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed before the learned SDJM, Sadar Cuttack.
After trial, the learned SDJM, Sadar Cuttack found that the complainant . has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he convicted the present petitioner and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- to the complainant and to undergo SI for two years, failing which the complainant was at liberty to realize the same through process of Court. Such conviction was challenged by the present petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 65 of 2008, the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack as per his judgment dated 10.3.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction recorded by the SDJM, Sadar Cuttack. Such concurring judgments are challenged in this revision. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 10.8.2009 and the petitioner and opp. party No. 2 i.e. the. complainant filed a joint affidavit on 17.8.2009 stating that a settlement Has been entered into between himself and the opp. party No. 2 the accused. It is further averred that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-by way of A/C banker's cheque bearing No. 033630 dated 5.8.2009 of the Axis Bank Ltd. has been paid by the petitioner towards the full and final settlement to him (complainant) towards the dues, the complainant has no objection if order of acquittal is passed. He further averred that the original lease deed of IDCO which was kept as security with the opp. party No. 2 has already been returned to the petitioner. He also declares that he do not want to proceed further in the case and the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act may be compounded for the ends of justice. He is duly identified by Sri Biswaranjan Sahu, Advocate. The affidavit reveals that the complainant is identified by advocate Sri S.K. Patnaik.
Section 147 of N.I. Act is quoted below:
Offences to be compoundable - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.
In course of submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. : (2008) 2 SCC 305 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that after the amendment of Section 147, the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable.
Keeping in view of such changed position of law and the fact that the parties has compromised, the Hon'ble Apex Court has disposed of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived between the appellant and the respondent. The ratio of that case is squarely applicable to the present case.
In view of the compromise between the parties and the affidavit filed by the opp. party No. 2 dated 10.8.2009 and also the joint affidavit filed by the petitioner and the opp. party No. 2 dated 17.8.2009, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in ICC No. 57 of 2006 of the Court of SDJM, Cuttack (s) is hereby set aside.
The Crl. Revn. is accordingly disposed of.