JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh. J. :- Present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 Cr.PC, against the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar whereby the accused petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short the Act); and the judgment dated 15.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the accused petitioners has been dismissed. 2. In brief the facts are that respondent no.2-Samra Finance and Properties Pvt.Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of financing loans for hire and purchase. Petitioner no.1-company is a transport company and petitioner no.2 is one of its partners. They obtained a loan from the complainant company-respondent no.2 and in consideration of the same petitioner no.1-Firm issued cheques dated 29.8.2000 for a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs drawn by petitioner no.2 on behalf of petitioner no.1, being its partner. The said cheques on presentation for encashment were returned dishonoured on 18.9.2000 by State Bank of India, Batala Branch. After issue of legal notice and expiry of statutory period, complaint was filed by respondent no.2-complainant company under section 138 of the Act. Petitioners no.1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed. Hence the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. 3. After issue of notice, parties before this Court have amicably compromised the matter between them. At the time of hearing today petitioner no.2-Balbir Singh (partner of petitioner no.1- firm), is present in Court and identified by his counsel. Similarly Sucha Lal, authorised representative of respondent no.2-company is also present in Court and identified by his counsel. The parties have placed on record a compromise deed dated 3.7.2010, which has been witnessed by their counsel. The same is taken on record as Mark A. 4. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.75,000/- had earlier been paid at the time of hearing on 2.3.2010 and another sum of Rs.75,000/- has been handed over in Court today by petitioner no.2 Balbir Singh to Sucha Lal-representative of respondent no.2- complainant company. 5. The same is taken on record as Mark A. 4. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.75,000/- had earlier been paid at the time of hearing on 2.3.2010 and another sum of Rs.75,000/- has been handed over in Court today by petitioner no.2 Balbir Singh to Sucha Lal-representative of respondent no.2- complainant company. 5. Sh.Sucha Lal in terms of the compromise states that entire sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards full and final settlement has been received on behalf of the complainant company and therefore, they have no objection if the offence at this stage is compounded and the proceedings set aside. 6. Keeping in view the respective stand of the parties and having regard to the fact that the petitioners have now fully discharged their debt liability, there appears to be no legal impediment in compounding the offence in view of Section 147 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act, is set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. Revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ------------