D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) - The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. He preferred an appeal which was pending before the respondent no. 2. During the pendency of appeal, the parties namely the complainant and the accused entered into a compromise. The compromise was filed in the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, under its order dated 6. 11. 1996, refused to record this compromise on the ground that there is no provision either in the Negotiable instruments Act or in the Criminal Procedure Code permitting compounding of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Appellate Court casually referred the pronouncement of Andhra Pradesh High court on this point by saying that the said authority is not binding on him. The instant writ petition has been preferred against this order dated 6. 11. 1996 of the appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A. have been heard. None appeared for the respondent No. 3 even in the revised list. ( 2 ) SECTION 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not contain any provision permitting the parties to compound the offence punishable under this section. It is undisputed that Negotiable Instruments Act is special enactment other than the Indian Penal Code. Such offence is not contemplated under Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) A comparative study of the Code of Criminal Procedure before amendment and after amendment will indicate that there is no absolute prohibition to permit compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the old Code of Criminal Procedure in Schedule-II, 8 columns were in existence. It is also provided whether offences are compoundable or not. In the last part of the schedule offences under other laws were also indicated and in column 6 it was provided that all such offences are not compoundable. ( 4 ) IN the new Code of Criminal Procedure a different scheme has been adopted by the Legislature. Column 6 of the old Code has been deleted, and in II Schedule of the amended Code there is no provision indicated whether offences are compoundable or not. In order to clarify the position the Legislature inserted Section 320 in the new Code which provides for compounding certain offences. Column 6 of the old Code has been deleted, and in II Schedule of the amended Code there is no provision indicated whether offences are compoundable or not. In order to clarify the position the Legislature inserted Section 320 in the new Code which provides for compounding certain offences. Offences mentioned in the I Table of this section can be compounded without permission of the Court and the offences mentioned in the next table can be compounded with the permission of the Court. In these two tables there is no indication about compounding of offences punishable under any other law. Entry II of the Second Schedule of the new Code still provides for classification of offences against other laws. There is no indication in this entry whether such offences are compoundable or not compoundable. However, it is clear that in the first category by a Magistrate of I Class and in the third category by any Magistrate. If column 6 of the old Code has been deleted in relation to offences under other laws it cannot be accepted that the Legislature intended that in no case compounding of offences punishable under other laws can be permitted. The punishment provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. In such offence public at large is not affected. It is not actually an offence against the Society nor offence can be described as heinous offence. If such offences are not included in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is difficult to accept the view that such offences cannot be compounded. Even in those offences which are mentioned in Section 320 of the Cr. P. C. , in some of them punishment of more than one year R. I. is contemplated and if such offences committed under the IPC can be permitted to be compounded. There is no reason why the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be permitted to be compounded. A similar view was taken in M. Mohan Reddy v. J. D. Bhola Rao, 1996 (II)BC 24: [vol. 2 DCTC 319]. It is also reported in 1996 JIC 27. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6. 11. A similar view was taken in M. Mohan Reddy v. J. D. Bhola Rao, 1996 (II)BC 24: [vol. 2 DCTC 319]. It is also reported in 1996 JIC 27. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6. 11. 1996 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to entertain the application of the complainant and the petition for compounding the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after recording the compromise decide the appeal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed. .