JUDGMENT D.K.Sinha,J. Heard. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken in the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act delay of 679 days in filing the instant Cr.Revision is allowed. I.A.No.1512 of 2009 stands disposed. This Cr. Revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 114 of 2007 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was dismissed and thereby confirmed the judgment dated 25.05.2007 passed by Shri K.K.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in T.R.No.405 of 2007 arising out of Complaint C/1 Case No. 1444 of 2006. by which the petitioner was convicted for the said charge and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months and was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-being the compensation to the complainant-O.P.No.2 herein. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the Complainant-O.P.No.2 on account of long standing acquaintances and having good relationship he had lent a sum of Rs. 30,000/-on 18.05.2006 as friendly loan to the petitioner on demand on the latter’s promise to return the same within a month. When the amount could not be returned by the petitioner within the time stipulated, the complainant approached the petitioner who issued a cheque bearing No. 0400373 on 18.08.2006 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-drawn on Bank of India, Telco Campus Branch infavour of the complainant. It was alleged that when the cheque was presented on 21.08.2006, it was returned with the endorsement ‘insufficient fund’. The complainant immediately informed the petitioner about dishonour of the cheque which was issued by him but no attention was paid in respect of making payment of the cheque amount and only thereafter the complainant O.P.No.2 herein sent a legal notice on 02.09.2006 which was received by the petitioner on 04.09.2006 and even then when no interest was taken to pay back the loan amount , the complainant-O.P.No.2 filed a case for the alleged offence under Section 138 N.I. Act before the C.J.M., Jamshedpur. 3. The complainant-O.P.No.2 entered appearance and filed a counter-affidavit through the Counsel in this Criminal Revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submitted that the parties have entered into the compromise and settled their disputes amicably with the intervention of well-wishers and common friends. 3. The complainant-O.P.No.2 entered appearance and filed a counter-affidavit through the Counsel in this Criminal Revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submitted that the parties have entered into the compromise and settled their disputes amicably with the intervention of well-wishers and common friends. The dispute was resolved by the complainant on acceptance of Rs.30,000/-which was advanced by him to the petitioner as friendly loan. Such amount was paid by the petitioner to the complainant through different cheques as contained in paragraph No.5 of the Compromise to the satisfaction of O.P.No.2 and the instrument of compromise has been brought on the record of Cr. Revision and marked Annexure-1, duly signed by the Complainant-O.P.No.2 (Pankaj Kumar Agrawal) as has been drawn in the form of an affidavit. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed before this Court, the Complainant-O.P.No.2 has corroborated the averment made in the Compromise Petition and stated that in view of the settlement/compromise between the parties the complainant has already received the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-from the petitioner through different cheques drawn on Union Bank of India, Sakchi Branch and his Counsel orally submitted that the complainant had no longer grievance against the petitioner and hence upon composition of the offence under provision of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, 1881 appropriate order may be passed by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner. 6. In Alpa Sanghani Vrs. State of Jharkhand and another a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision No.753 of 2005 held, “ Since the parties have settled the disputes as regards the cheques involved in this case I feel that the petitioner can be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. Learned Counsel for the 2nd-Respondent has also no objection for taking the lenient view in the matter of sentence. In the above circumstance, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. The fine amount imposed upon the petitioner with default stipulation are confirmed. As the sum of Rs. 40,000/-has been paid, the direction that the petitioner should pay compensation is set aside.” 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the considered view on the basis of the Compromise entered into between the parties and acceptance of Rs. As the sum of Rs. 40,000/-has been paid, the direction that the petitioner should pay compensation is set aside.” 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the considered view on the basis of the Compromise entered into between the parties and acceptance of Rs. 30,000/-by the Complainant O.P.No.2 on his full satisfaction, which was the compensation amount, I find that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is fit to be set aside. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and this Cr. Revision stands disposed of. 8. As the Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner is in custody on remand since May, 2009, let the petitioner P.K. Chakraborty @ Pranav Chakraborty be released forthwith in C/1 Case No. 1444 of 2006 corresponding to T.R.No.405 of 2007 if he is not wanted in any other case.