JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 106-Cr.A/10 of 2017, dated 5.6.2018, affirming judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Rajgarh District Sirmaur, dated 20.11.2017 in complaint No. 31-3 of 2017 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 5 days. 2. Petitioner and respondent are present in Court and have stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them and as per compromise, the amount deposited by the accused/petitioner in this Court is to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant and rest of the amount has already been paid by the accused/petitioner to complainant. In turn, respondent/complainant has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint for compounding the matter as compromised. Separate statements of both of them have been recorded. 3. Consequently, respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is permitted to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him. 4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663 and Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case and present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee because the petitioner is a small agriculturist and cheque amount borrowed by him was utilized for agricultural work, but could not be repaid for agricultural losses for want of adequate yield of crops and now he has somehow arranged money for payment to the respondent/complainant. 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that it is an appropriate case to impose the lesser compounding fee. 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that it is an appropriate case to impose the lesser compounding fee. Hence keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee Rs.5000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,Shimla within six weeks from today. 6. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within stipulated period the judgments of conviction and sentence shall automatically revive. 7. Registry is also directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner along with upto date interest to the complainant/respondent Rajesh Kumar by remitting the same in his Account No. 143501100028209, UCO Bank, Dhamla, Tehsil and District Sirmaur. 8. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be also sent to H.P. State Lagal Services Authority, Shimla.