Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari and Learned Advocate, Mr. A.L. Pandav, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. The applicant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the judgment and order dated 5-5-2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 691 of 2008 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, and the applicant-accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,500/-, in default, to suffer SI for two months and was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the applicant accused preferred Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned City Session Judge, Ahmedabad. However, it was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3-1-2011 pased in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City. 4. Both the aforesaid judgments and orders are under challenge by the applicants in the present Criminal Revision Application. 5. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for both the parties that the matter is settled between the parties. Shri Rajendra Karsanbhai Prajapati, who is present in Court, is identified by Learned Advocate, Mr .A.L. Pandav as the original complainant. It has been specifically stated by the complainant that the applicant-original accused has paid Rs. 2,25,000/- in cash to him. Original receipt issued by the complainant is shown to the Court and xerox copy of the same is produced by Learned Advocate for the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has also stated that now he has no grievance against the applicant-accused. The complainant has also stated before this Court that the matter is settled between the parties and now he has no grievance against the applicant-accused. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 716 has observed as under in Paras 17 18 of the judgment: “17. The complainant has also stated before this Court that the matter is settled between the parties and now he has no grievance against the applicant-accused. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 716 has observed as under in Paras 17 18 of the judgment: “17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Indian Technologists and Engineers, 1996) 2 SCC 739, the object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the party of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002.” “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 at between the appellant and the respondent.” 7. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Revision Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence. 8. In the result, the Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5-5-2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 691 of 2008 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No. 5, Ahmedabad, as also the judgment and order dated 3-1-2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City., dismissing the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties are permitted to compound the offence. The parties are permitted to compound the offence. If any amount is deposited by the applicant-accused before the trial court or the appellate court in pursuance of the order passed by them, the applicant is at liberty to withdraw the said amunt by submitting application before the appropriate Court. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P