Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Criminal Application No. 56 of 2011 : Before dealing with the revision on merit, it would be expedient to decide Criminal Application No. 56 of 2011 filed by the revision applicant under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the “Act”) for compounding of the offence. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 12,500/- at the time of preferring appeal and today she is making payment of Rs. 24,500/- by demand draft drawn on State Bank of India in favour of respondent no. 2 to make up the total liability of Rs. 37,000/- under two cheques. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is ready to pay 15% amount of total liability which comes to Rs. 5500/- by way of costs in terms of guidelines of the Supreme Court in DamodarS. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 . The guidelines issued by the Apex Court are reproduced below : “THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows : (a) The directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such application is made compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.” The Apex Court has, inter-alia, clarified that costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority concerned. The Apex Court has in paragraph 12 explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 Cr. P. C. cannot be followed in the strict sense in the following words : “12. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. Which states that “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section” A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320 (9) Cr. P.C. Especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.” 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has opposed the application. He submits that the applicant has unilaterally preferred the application and he cannot be permitted to compound the offence by paying off principal amount of Rs. 37000/- after a period of over ten years. He prayed for rejection of the application. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant that agreement on the part of 2nd respondent is not necessary and in view of the language of The Guidelines issued in DamodarS. Prabhu’s case (supra) by the Apex Court, he is entitled to get the offence compounded at his will, is not correct and cannot be accepted. In the said case, appellant and respondent before the Apex Court had arrived at a settlement and jointly prayed for compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. In the present case, since respondent no. In the said case, appellant and respondent before the Apex Court had arrived at a settlement and jointly prayed for compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. In the present case, since respondent no. 2 creditor has opposed the compounding of the offence, application deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. 5. Criminal Revision Application No. 316 of 1997 : Now, coming to the facts of case, it was averred by respondent no.2 in her complaint that she and present applicant were on cordial terms. In February 2001, applicant-accused demanded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- from the complainant which she lent to the accused. For the purpose of repayment, applicant-accused issued three cheques dated 10.6.2001, 19.6.2001 and 20.6.2001 for Rs. 7000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-respectively. Complainant presented the cheques for encashment, but the cheques were bounced. Demand notice was issued, but in vain. Complainant was, therefore, compelled to file complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the applicant-accused. Defence of the accused was of denial. According to her, there was no transaction whatsoever between her and complainant and in order to extort money from her, complainant had filed the proceedings. 6. Learned Magistrate found that cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of applicant-accused and by failing to comply with the demand made in the legal notice within the statutory period of fifteen days, the applicant-accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Learned Magistrate on conviction, sentenced applicant-accused to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. 7. Applicant-accused preferred appeal before the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. However, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2005 came to be dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 14th November 2007. Hence, this revision. 8. I have perused judgments of both the Courts below. As regards three distinct causes of action, learned appellate court has observed that since three offences occurred in one year of the same nature, the same can be tried together in view of the provisions of Section 219 Cr. Hence, this revision. 8. I have perused judgments of both the Courts below. As regards three distinct causes of action, learned appellate court has observed that since three offences occurred in one year of the same nature, the same can be tried together in view of the provisions of Section 219 Cr. P. C. It is found established on record through oral and documentary evidence that the accused had issued three cheques in discharge of her legal liability and that the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the bank account of applicant-accused. Bank memos are proved on record. It is also established on record that the legal notice was duly served and that the applicant-accused failed to comply with the legitimate demand made in the notice. 9. The grounds on which revisional power under Section 397 Cr. P. C. can be exercised are two : (a) where the finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper and (b) where the proceedings are irregular. The revisional power of the High Court merely conserves its power to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence and that the subordinate Courts do not exceed the jurisdiction or abuse the power vested in them under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the inferior criminal Courts or to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that the revisional powers are purely discretionary and should be exercised only in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice when there is glaring defect in the procedure on point of law resulting in failure of justice. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgments and orders I find that there is no irregularity or glaring mistake committed by the lower Courts in convicting the applicant-accused. There is no perversity in the impugned orders nor illegal appreciation of evidence on the part of the Courts below. 11. Hence, conviction of applicant-accused will have to be maintained. It is accordingly maintained. However, since applicant-accused has shown repentance before this Court, this Court hereby sets aside the order of directing the applicant-accused to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Instead, applicant-accused shall suffer sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and shall pay fine in the sum of Rs. 74,000/- (Rupees Seventy-four thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Instead, applicant-accused shall suffer sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and shall pay fine in the sum of Rs. 74,000/- (Rupees Seventy-four thousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Amount of fine, if recovered, shall be made over to the complainant- respondent no. 2 by way of compensation. Amount, if any deposited by the applicant-accused earlier, shall be adjusted towards the compensation due to the complainant in the sum of Rs. 74,000/-. Revision application stands disposed of accordingly.