Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 2. The applicant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the judgment and order dated 2-2-2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 25345 of 2007 by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, and the applicant-accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for ten days and of the amount of fine, Rs. 20,000/- were ordered to be paid as compensation. 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 District and Session Judge, Surat. However, it was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22-2-2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2010 by the learned 3rd additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat. 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, Mr. S.C. Sharma for Mr. M.R. Pande for the applicant that the matter is settled between the parties. As per the settlement, cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- is deposited before this Court. It is stated that the said amount may be permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant. Consent terms reduced in writing signed by both the parties produced on record by the learned advocate for the applicant is taken on record. As per the settlement, the complainant has agreed that if the cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- is allowed to be withdrawn which is deposited by the applicant, he will not have any objection if conviction of the applicant is quashed. 6.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. 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.” 8. 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. 9. In the result, the Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2-2-2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 25345 of 2007 by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, as also the judgment and order dated 22-2-2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2010 by the learned 3rd additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat dismissing the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The parties are permitted to compound the offence. Registry is directed to hand over cheque of Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon, if any, to the complainant on proper verification and identification. The applicant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of fine, if any, deposited by the applicant by submitting application before the appropriate Court. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P