JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. PC, is directed against the judgment dated 02.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2015, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, in Criminal Complaint No. 303-1/2010 and 164-111/2010, whereby, the learned Court below while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- to the respondent-complainant bank. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant bank (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging therein that the accused with a view to discharge his part loan liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 61150, dated 10.08.2010, amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-, in favour of the complainant, but on presentation, cheque was dishonoured vide memorandum, dated 11.8.2010, on account of "Insufficient funds" in the saving account of the accused. The complainant by way of legal notice called upon the accused to make the payment of the said amount within a period of 15 days. Since, accused failed to make payment within the stipulated time despite requests having been made by the complainant through legal notice, the complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H P. 3. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, vide judgment dated 09.04.2015, convicted and sentenced him as per description given supra. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of learned trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, however, fact remains that the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.01.2016, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of learned trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, however, fact remains that the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.01.2016, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below. 5. On 14 th June, 2016, this Court was informed by the leaned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, that entire amount in terms of the judgments passed by the learned Courts below stands paid to the complainant-bank and as such, the case at hand can be ordered to be compounded in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused may be ordered to be acquitted of charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act, in terms of judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed BabalalH. (2010) 5 SCC 663 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-bank, fairly acknowledged the factum with regard to deposit/receipt of compensation amount i.e. Rs. 1,52,000/-, awarded by learned Courts below, however, he stated that since complainant-bank was put to undue hardship for realization of its own money, some reasonable compensation may also be awarded to it while accepting the prayer for compounding the matter. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Manta, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the sufficient amount stands duly paid to the complainant-bank and the accused has already remained behind the bars for considerable time, complainant-bank cannot have any objection for getting this matter compounded in terms of the judgment passed by learned Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 7. It is not in dispute that entire amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e., cheque amount stands received by the complainant-bank, as has been fairly admitted by Mr. It is not in dispute that entire amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e., cheque amount stands received by the complainant-bank, as has been fairly admitted by Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant-bank and as such, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer having been made by the accused for compounding the offence, especially, when this Court enjoys powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence. Moreover, Honble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , has categorically held that offence, if any, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can be ordered to be compounded by the Court even after recording of conviction and as such, this court while exercising its power under Section 147 of the Act, deems it fit to consider the prayer for compounding the offence made in the aforesaid application. 8. Consequently, in view of the same, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and the petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.