JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. The petitioner stands convicted by learned ACJM, Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No. 994/2011 for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and was sentenced to suffer six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,10,000/-, in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment by judgment dated 8.6.2016 which was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh by judgment dated 13.7.2017 passed in Appeal No. 14/2016. 2. The petitioner is presently lodged in the District Jail, Hanumangarh. 3. Learned counsel representing the parties have filed an application to take the compromise executed between the petitioner and the complainant respondent No. 1 on record. The compromise application has been verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.), Raj. High Court, Jodhpur today itself. 4. In view of the fact that the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable without formal permission of the Court, the application is accepted. The impugned judgments dated 13.7.2017 and 8.6.2016 are set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge for offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, considering the fact that the compromise has been arrived at, at the stage of revision, the petitioner will be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the trial court as cost to be imposed in light of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 . Upon the cost being deposited, the petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The cost shall be appropriated in the funds of the Legal Services Authority. 5. The revision is allowed in these terms.