ORDER : This Revision Petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.09.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.540 of 2008, on the file of JMFC (II-Court) at Karwar, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also directing payment of compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-to the complainant, which was confirmed in judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2012 filed by the accused on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. 2. Both the learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that the matter has been settled between the parties before the Mediation Centre at Dharwad and they have also signed the Memorandum of Agreement made before the Mediation Centre, which reads as under: “The aforesaid Petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute, between the parties. In the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions: i. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-on 31.10.2012 and another sum of Rs.1,00,500/-on 04.01.2013 before the Court below and the respondent has withdrawn the said amount. ii. The parties have settled the matter and the petitioner has agreed to pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. iii. The Petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/-on 23.10.2018 to the Respondent, which the Respondent acknowledge. iv. The Petitioner has paid the balance sum of Rs.25,000/-today and the Respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the balance Rs.25,000/-today and the parties have agreed to close the matter as having been finally settled for Rs.2,25,500/-(Rs.1,25,000/-which was withdrawn before the Trial Court and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-during the course of mediation (Rs.75,000/-on 23.10.2018 and Rs.25,000/-today i.e. on 16.11.2018)). In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the appeal be disposed off, in terms of the aforesaid agreement. Parties will appear on 22.11.2018 before the Hon’ble Court for passing Orders/Decree in terms of the above said agreement.” 3. The aforesaid report of the Mediation Centre is placed on record. 4. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the appeal be disposed off, in terms of the aforesaid agreement. Parties will appear on 22.11.2018 before the Hon’ble Court for passing Orders/Decree in terms of the above said agreement.” 3. The aforesaid report of the Mediation Centre is placed on record. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663 at paragraphs 21 and 25 has observed as under : Paragraph 21 “21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) 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. Paragraph 25 25. 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. 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. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. ” 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another, reported in (2014)10 SCC 690 has held that if the Court finds that it is a result of positive attitude of the parties, then in such appropriate cases, court can reduce the costs indicated in Damodar S. Prabhu case by imposing minimal costs or even waive the same. Such course of action would strike a balance between the two competing but equally important interests, namely, achieving the objectives delineated in Damodar S. Prabhu case on the one hand and the public interest sought to be achieved by encouraging settlements/ resolution of case through Lok Adalats on the other hand. 6. In the instant case, the total cheque amount is Rs.2,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was genuinely contesting the matter and there was no willful desire not to repay the amount to the complainant. He submits that the petitioner is a law abiding person and there is no criminal antecedents and seeks to waive the cost. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was genuinely contesting the matter and there was no willful desire not to repay the amount to the complainant. He submits that the petitioner is a law abiding person and there is no criminal antecedents and seeks to waive the cost. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Trial Court has been deposited by the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/-may be imposed as cost which shall be deposited by the accused/petitioner before the Legal Service Authority. Accordingly, I pass the following order: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Court of JMFC (II Court), Karwar, in Criminal Case No.540 of 2008 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2012 dated 08.05.2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, are hereby set aside and the accused-petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The accused-petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/-to the Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from today and a copy of the receipt for having paid the said amount has to be filed in this Court within eight weeks from today. Revision Petition disposed off.