P.Vadivel vs M.Arulmozhidevan

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.RC.2526 of 2026 &
Crl.M.P.No.21624 of 2026
P.Vadivel
S/o Periyasamy Pillai,
NO.163, T.H.Road,
Ground Floor,
Kaladipet,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M.Arulmozhidevan
S/o Mari,
NO.4/1, Ilaya Mudali Street,
Kamarajar Salai,
Tondiarpet,
Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Revision Case filed under section 438 of BNSS
r/w.442 of BNSS praying to set aside the order passed by the XVII
Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.278 of 2025, dated
09.03.2026 against C.C.No.1332 of 2020, dated 06.11.2024.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Esakkimuthu
For Respondent(s): M/s.M.S.Vigneswaran
ORDER
Heard Mr.S. Esakkimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr.M.S.Vigneswaran, learned counsel for the1st
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
Respondent and Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner to set aside the judgment passed by the XVII Addl. City
Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.278 of 2025, dated 09.03.2026
confirming the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-III at
George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.1332 of 2020 on dated
06.11.2024.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this
Criminal Revision Petition and necessary for disposal of the same,
are as follows:-
a) The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by the Metropolitan Magistrate-III,
George Town, Chennai, made in C.C.No.1332 of
2020 by the judgment dated 06.11.2024, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
Respondent, in default of payment of the said
amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three
months. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court,
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
the Petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in
Crl.A.No.278 of 2025 before the learned XVII Addl.
City Civil Court Chennai.
b) The learned First Appellate Court has confirming
the judgment passed by the trial court by dismissing
the said Appeal vide order dated 09.03.2026.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal
Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Pending, Criminal Revision, the parties to the Revision have
amicably settled the matter among themselves and have entered into a
Joint Compromise Memo of Full and Final Settlement on 04.11.2026.
The Respondent viz., P. Vadivel and the petitioner viz.,
M.Arulmozhidevan have entered into a Joint Memo of Compromise
of Full and Final Settlement, dated 04.11.2026 and the same is taken
on record and the terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise, dated
04.11.2026 is extracted hereunder:
‘JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE FILED BY BOTH
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT :-
The Petitioner and Respondent above named jointly submit as follows:
1. It is submitted that the petitioner filed above criminal revision
petition to challenging the order of the appeal in Crl.A.No.278 of 2025 before
XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai was dismissed on 09.03.2026
confirming the conviction. The Respondent / Complainant had filed C.C.No.
1332 of 2020 before the Metropolitan Magistrate-III, George Town, Chennai
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
for offence u/s 138 of N.I Act against the Petitioner for cheque amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The said case was convicted and sentenced to 2 years S.I and
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appeal in Crl.A.No.278 of 2025 before
XVII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai was dismissed on 09.03.2026
confirming the conviction.
2. It is submitted that against the said judgment, the Petitioner has
filed the present Criminal Revision before this Hon'ble Court.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is arrested and remanded on
02.10.2026 due to non compliance of the order of Suspension of Sentence and
failed to deposit the conditional amount within the stipulated period.
4. It is submitted that as per the settlement, the Petitioner has paid a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the Respondent /
Complainant towards full and final settlement of the cheque amount in
C.C.No.l332 of 2020 by DD No. 003984 dated 27.09.2026 in the name of Sri
Sai Sakthi Steels company of the respondent.
5. The Respondent / Complainant acknowledges the receipt of the said
amount and states that he has no further claim against the Petitioner in
respect of the alleged case Cheques bearing Number 972602 dated
21.09.2020 for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and Cheque bearing
Number 647216 dated 21.09.2020 for Rs.2.00.000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
both drawn on UCO Bank.
6. The Respondent / Complainant has no objection for allowing the
Criminal Revision and for compounding the offence u/s 147 of N.I Act and for
acquitting the Petitioner / Accused from the charges u/s 138 of N.I Act. He
further states that he does not want to pursue the complaint.
7. Both parties state that this compromise is voluntary, without any
coercion, undue influence and out of their free will.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record this
Joint Memo of Compromise, compound the offence u/s 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, set aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.l332
of 2020 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Ill, George Town, Chennai as
confirmed in Crl.A.No.278 of 2025 dated 09.03.2026 on the file of XVII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and acquit the Petitioner / Accused and
thus render justice.’
5. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that pending
Revision, both the parties have entered into a Joint Memo of Compromise of
Full and Final Settlement, dated 04.11.2026 , duly singed by the parties and their
respective counsels who are present before this Court and to that effect, the
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
Criminal Revision case shall be disposed of in accordance with the terms and
conditions as contained therein.
6. Mr.M.S.Vigneswaran, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
the entire amount has been deposited by the Revision Petitioner and no amount is
due against the Revision Petitioner. He further submits that the Respondent is not
interested in continuing the case against the Revision Petitioner .
7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submits that the
present Revision has been filed on 25.09.2026 before this Court and on the basis
of change in circumstances, as the parties have entered into Joint Memo of
Compromise, it was prayed to this Court to compound the offence. It was further
argued by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that this Court has
inherent powers to compound the offence, so that, ends of justice could be
secured as the object of Negotiable Instruments Act is primarily compensatory
and not punitive and moreover Section 147 of NI Act would have an overriding
effect on Section 359 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Irrespective of which stage, the parties are compromising with the kind leave of
this Hon'ble Court.
8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner
has submitted that in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs.Sayed Babalal H
reported at 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had formulated the
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
guidelines for compounding the offenceunder section 138 N.I. Act wherein in
para 21, it was pleased to observed as under :
"With regard to the progression of litigation in
cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney
General has urged this Court to frame
guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing
costs on parties who unduly delay compounding
of the offence. It was submitted that the
requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a
deterrent for delayed composition, since at
present, free and easy compounding of offences
at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive
to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the
cases for years. An application for compounding
made after several years not only results in the
system being burdened but the complainant is
also deprived of effective justice. In view of this
submission, we direct that the following
guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i)
In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of
Summons be suitably modified making it clear to
the accused that he could make an application
for compounding of the offences at the first or
second hearing of the case and that if such an
application is made, compounding may be
allowed by the court without imposing any costs
on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application
for compounding as aforesaid, then if an
application for compounding is made before the
Magistrate at a subsequent stage,compounding
can be allowed subject to the condition that the
accused will be required to pay 10% of the
cheque amount to be deposited as a condition
for compounding with the Legal Services
Authority, or such authority as the Court deems
fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
is made before the Sessions Court or a High
Court in revision or appeal, such compounding
may be allowed on the condition that the
accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way
of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is
made before the Supreme Court, the figure
would increase to 20% of the cheque amount."
9. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner also submitted that in
the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another vs.
Kanchan Mehta reported at 2017 (7) Supreme 558 , the Hon'ble the Apex
Court in para 18, was pleased to observe as under :
“ i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is
primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on
accused in view presumption under Section 139
but the standard of such proof is
"preponderance of probabilities". The same has
to be normally tried summarily as per provisions
of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such
variation as may be appropriate to proceedings
under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read,
principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and
the Court can close the proceedings and
discharge the accused on satisfaction that the
cheque amount with assessed costs and interest
is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with
the punitive aspect.
(ii)The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly
with the object of enforcing the compensatory
element, compounding at the initial stage has to
be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage
subject to appropriate compensation as may be
found acceptable to the parties or the Court.
__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
(iii)Though compounding requires consent of
both parties, even in absence of such consent,
the Court, in the interests of justice, on being
satisfied that the complainant has been duly
compensated, can in its discretion close the
proceedings and discharge the accused.
(iv)Procedure for trial of cases under
ChapterXVII of the Act has normally to be
summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under
second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it
was undesirable to try the case summarily as
sentence of more than one year may have to be
passed, is to be exercised after considering the
further fact that apart from the sentence
ofimprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under
Section357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable
compensation with default sentence under
Section 64 IPC and with further powers of
recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With
thisapproach, prison sentence of more than one
year maynot be required in all cases.
(v) Since evidence of the complaint can be given
on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the
person giving affidavit and examining him and
the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the
dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the
Magistrate to record any further preliminary
evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as
evidence at all stages of trial or other
proceedings. The manner of examination of the
person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264
Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary
procedure except where exercise of power under
second proviso to Section 143becomes
necessary, where sentence of one year may have
to be awarded and compensation under
Section357(3) is considered inadequate, having
regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial
capacity and the conduct of the accused or any
other circumstances'.
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
10 . Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further relied
upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kripal
Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh reported
in 2004 Crl. L. J.3786 wherein, the Gujarat High Court was pleased
to observe as under:-
“ 31. In the circumstances, it is hereby declared
that the compromise arrived between the parties
to this litigation out of court is accepted as
genuine and the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned JMFC,
Vadodara and confirmed in appeal by thel
earned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Vadodara, therefore, on the given set of facts are
hereby quashed and set aside as this court
intends, otherwise to secure the ends of justice
as provided under section 482Cr.P.C. Obviously
the order disposing Revision Application would
not have any enforceable effect."
11. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
VinayDevanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited reported
in AIR2008 SC 716, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to
observe as under :
“ 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision(Section
147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment,
there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We,
therefore, dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
at between the appellant and the respondent.
19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly
allowed by holding that since the matter has
been compromised between the parties and the
amount of Rs.45,000/- has been paid bythe
appellant towards full and final settlement to the
respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant
is entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction
and sentence recorded by all courts is set aside
and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against
him."
12. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has argued that the law
regarding compounding of offences under the N.I. Act is very clear and is no
more res integra and the offences under the N.I. Act can be compounded even
at any stage of the proceedings. He submits that in terms of the aforesaid law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties may be permitted to
compound the offence and the conviction of the petitioner be set aside.
13. Per contra, Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and
submits that the Revision Petitioner has already been convicted by the learned
trial court and the conviction order had already been upheld by the Appellate
Court in the appeal.
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
14. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
State further submitted that the appeal has been rejected on merit and the
Revision Petitioner was convicted, then where the parties or any one of them
can be permitted to place compromise and to get the order of acquittal from the
Court is the question. He further submitted that the present case is nothing, but a
gross misuse of the process of law and thus sentence cannot be compounded on
the basis of compromise as filed by the parties.
15. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that this Court
has already decided a similar issue vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.875 of 2025 [K.Balachenniappan VsJeyakrishnan]. The
counsel argues that the present revision petitioner's case is fully covered by the
aforesaid judgment and prays that the present Revision Petition may be disposed
of in the same terms. A copy of the judgment has been placed before the Court
for perusal.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondent and learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.
17. Considering the facts as narrated above, the following question arose
for consideration.
'Whether the order passed by the Appellate Court
confirming the conviction of the trial court under
__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be
nullified by the High Court on the basis of
compromise entered between the parties'.
18. Before answering the aforesaid question as framed, I shall examine
the relevant provision of the B.N.S.S, as well as the Negotiable Instrument
Act. I may extract Section 359 of B.N.S.S., and Section 147 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Section 359 B.N.S.S. - Compounding of
Offences -
1) The offences punishable under the sections of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specified in
the firsttwo columns of the Table next following
may be compounded by the persons mentioned
in the third column of that Table: -
2)The offences punishable under the sections of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 specified in
the first two columns of the Table next following
may, with the permission of the Court before
which any prosecution for such offence is
pending, be compounded by the persons
mentioned in the third column of that Table:--
3) When an offence is compoundable under this
section, the abetment of such offence or an
attempt to commit such offence (when such
attempt is itself an offence) or where the accused
is liable under subsection(5) of section 3 or
section 190 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita,
2023 (45 of 2023), may be compounded in like
manner.
(4)(a) When the person who would
otherwise be competent to compound an
offence under this section is a child or of
unsound mind, any person competent to
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
contract on his behalf may, with the
permission of the Court, compound such
offence;
(b) When the person who would otherwise
be competent to compound an offence
under this section is dead, the legal
representative, as defined in the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such
person may, with the consent of the Court,
compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed
for trial or when he has been convicted and
an appeal is pending,no composition for the
offence shall be allowed without the leave
of the Court to which he is committed, or,
as the case may be, before which the appeal
is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting
in the exercise of its powers of revision
under section 442 may allow any person to
compound any offence which such person is
competent to compound under this section
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the
accused is, by reason of a previous
conviction, liable either to enhanced
punishment or to a punishment of a
different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under
this section shall have the effect of an
acquittal of the accused with whom the
offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except
as provided by this section.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act:-
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
Offences to be compoundable.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), every offence punishable under
thisAct shall be compoundable.
19. It is well settled that inherent power of the Court can be
exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigants and
nor a specific remedy as provided by the statute. It is also well settled
that if an effective, alternative remedy is available, the High Court
will not exercise its inherent power, especially when the Revision
Petitioner may not have availed of that remedy. The power can be
exercised by the High Court to secure the ends of justice, prevent
abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita or Act,
depending upon the facts of the given case. This Court can always
take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by
exercising its power. These powers are neither limited, nor curtailed
by any other provision of the Sanhita or Act. However, such inherent
powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
20. In the instant case, it is true that the appeal was dismissed
and the conviction and sentence was upheld by the appellate court,
but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that this Court has power to
intervene in exercise of its power only with a view to do the
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
substantial justice or to avoid a miscarriage and the spirit of
compromise arrived at between the parties. This is perfectly justified
and legal too.
21. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as by the learned Counsel
for the State and other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and I do
not think it necessary to enlist those decisions which are taken into
consideration for the purpose of the present proceedings.
22. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner is invoking the
inherent power of this court after dismissal of the appeal confirming
his conviction and sentence. In these circumstances, I have to
examine as to whether for entertaining the aforesaid case, any special
circumstances are made out or not, so it can be legitimately argued
and inferred and held that in all cases where the Revision Petitioner is
able to satisfy this Court that there are special circumstances which
can be clearly spelt out subsequent proceeding invoking inherent
power of this court can be modified and cannot be thrown away on
that technical argument as to its sustainability once the contesting
parties entered into subsequent compromise.
23. In view of the decisions rendered in the judgment dated
19.09.2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.875 of 2025 [K.Balachenniappan
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
VsJeyakrishnan] and taking into account the fact that the parties
have settled the dispute amicably by way of compromise, this Court
is of the view that the compounding of the offence as required to be
permitted.
24. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is
disposed of in terms of Joint Memo of Compromise, dated

04.11.2026 arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of
Court. The impugned judgment passed in C.A.No.278 of 2025 dated
09.03.2026 by the learned XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Chennai,
confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.1332 of
2020, dated 06.11.2024 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate-III at
George Town, Chennai and sentence under S ection 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.1332 of 2020 dated
06.11.2024 stands anulled as this Court intends, otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as
acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the
complainant/person affected.
25 . In the result,
● The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in
terms of Joint Memo of Compromise dated
04.11.2026.
● The impugned conviction and sentence passed in
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
Crl.A.No.278 of 2025, dated 09.03.2026 by the
learned XVII Addl.City Civil Court, Chennai,
confirming the conviction and sentence made in in
C.C.No.1332 of 2020, dated 06.11.2024 on the file
of the Metropolitan Magistrate-III at George
Town, Chennai are hereby modified .
●
The conviction and sentence imposed on the
Revision Petitioner by both the courts below
stands anulled .
● The Revision Petitioner shall be treated as
acquitted on account of compounding of the
offence with the complainant/respondent.
 The revision petitioner – P.Vadivel,
S/o.Periyasamy Pillai is ordered to be released
from jail forthwith without imposing any
conditions.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is
closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MSR
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
To
1. The XVII Addl.City Civil Court, Chennai,
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate-III at George Town, Chennai
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison
Puzhal-1
Chennai
Note Issue copy today
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )

Crl.RC.2526 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
MSR
Crl.RC.2526 of 2026 &
Crl.M.P.No.21624 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )