JUDGMENT : : V.K. Sharma, J. Service is complete. The parties who are present in the court in person state that the inter se dispute between them giving rise to filing of a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has since been settled vide compromise deed filed in the court which is taken on record as Ext C-1. Statements of the parties recorded separately which also go to support compromise Ext C-1. 2. Pursuant to a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed against the petitioner (accused) by the respondent (complainant), former was convicted and sentenced vide judgment/order dated 25.2.2012/14.3.2012 as under:- ...Therefore, he is ordered to pay fine i.e. double amount of the cheque in question i.e. an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs only), failing which, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years. Fine as imposed to be deposited by him within one month from today, out of the fine amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only) be paid to the complainant. 3. Being aggrieved, the accused carried the matter in appeal which was partly allowed in the following terms :- In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that instead of rigorous imprisonment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine. Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed. 4. As provided u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offence u/s 138 of the said Act is compoundable. Accordingly, in view of compromise between the parties as reflected vide compromise deed Ext C-1, the case is disposed of as compromised, subject to the condition that the accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees twenty two thousand five hundred only), that is, 15% of the cheque amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs for composition of the offence by depositing the same with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 , within 30 days from today. 1.50 lacs for composition of the offence by depositing the same with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 , within 30 days from today. The learned counsel for the accused states at the bar that while filing appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP, the accused had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- pursuant to which the sentence of fine imposed upon him by the learned trial court was suspended during pendency of the said appeal. If it is so and in view of the offence having been compounded, the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- deposited by the accused in the first appellate court shall be liable to be refunded to him in accordance with law. 5. Consequently, the accused shall stand acquitted of the charge u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. In view of compromise between the parties, the present revision petition as also Cr. MP No. 161 of 2014 shall also stand disposed of accordingly.