JUDGMENT 1. - An application (IA No.1740/2011) has been submitted before this Court, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shivganj (Sirohi) vide order dated 15.03.2008 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced with six months' simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi vide order dated 02nd May 2009. 2. Against both these orders, the petitioner filed present Revision Petition, which has been admitted by this Court and sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by order dated 06.05.2009. Now a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and so, it is prayed that in the light of the compromise, this Revision Petition may be disposed of. 3. The papers issued by the respondent-Sirohi Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank stating that no amount is due in respect of said cheque/loan have also been placed on record. An application under Section 320 CrPC read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has also been filed before this Court for grant of permission to compromise the case. 4. As per directions by this Court, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has verified the compromise and so, the compromise entered between the accused-petitioner and the complainant-Bank has also been placed on record before this Court. 5. Both the parties are present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. According to the compromise, the complainant agrees that he has been paid all the amount by the accused-petitioner and therefore, he does not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner. 6. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that considering large number of cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court should encourage compounding of the offence, for the spirit of section 138 of the Act is not so much as to punish the accused but is more so to ensure that the amount owed by the accused is realised by the complainant. 7. In the present case, since the amount has already been realised by the complainant, making an application for compounding the offence has been allowed by this Court and the compromise has been duly verified. 7. In the present case, since the amount has already been realised by the complainant, making an application for compounding the offence has been allowed by this Court and the compromise has been duly verified. Thus, the parties have entered into an agreement since the amount has already been paid by the petitioner. 8. As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (2) RLW 1599 (SC) - Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. - following guidelines are to be followed for compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:THE GUIDELINES "In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That 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 an 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. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount." 9. In the aforesaid decision, Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that the graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court-fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court-fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court can, of course, reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. 10. The petitioner has submitted an application that the compromise is arrived at between the parties and the petitioner has paid full amount of cheque in question, with interest amount, to the respondent-Bank and the account has already been cleared. The petitioner is a very poor person and there is no source of income for his livelihood and in these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that this Revision Petition may be disposed of on the basis of compromise without any cost looking to poor condition of the petitioner. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to poor condition of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, impugned judgment dated 02nd May 2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Cr. Appeal No.11/2008- Kastoor v. Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Shivganj Branch (Sirohi) is hereby set aside in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Sirohi within two months from the date of this order. 12. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petitioner- Kastoor s/o Malaji, Ghanchi, r/o Hanuman Chowk, Shivgaj Cantt, District-Sirohi is acquitted from offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Revision Allowed. *******