JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act') vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine of Rs. 60,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner was given benefit of set off in relation to the period already undergone in judicial custody and it was ordered that on depositing the amount of fine by the accused a sum of Rs. 58,000/- will be paid to the complainant. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, an appeal was filed by the accused-petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar which was subsequently transferred to Additional Sessions Judge and was dismissed by order dated 12.9.2005 and the order passed by the learned trial Judge has been affirmed, hence the present petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties, 4. The contention of the learned counsel is that parties have reached to a compromise and now there remains nothing to be paid to the complainant. It was also submitted that they may be permitted to compound the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as the same is compoundable. The learned counsel for the complainant has also affirmed the factum of compromise being entered between the parties and submitted that parties have finally settled the matter and now the complainant does not want any action in the matter. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. 6. The compromise entered into between the parties, after giving permission to compound the offence, has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The parties have been identified by their Advocates and now there remains no amount of the complainant due in the accused petitioner, therefore, the revision petition requires to be allowed. 7. 6. The compromise entered into between the parties, after giving permission to compound the offence, has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The parties have been identified by their Advocates and now there remains no amount of the complainant due in the accused petitioner, therefore, the revision petition requires to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12.9.2005 in Criminal Case No. 912/2003, affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2005 dated 6.7.2006 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act, the offence being compounded by the complainant. 8. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.Revision petition allowed. *******