JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 28.5.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2016, recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu District Kullu, in criminal complaint No. 530-I- 2008/66-I-2013/520-I-2015(old) 590-I-2016/08/590-I/2016/08 (new), whereby the learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the "Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., against the present petitioner-accused, alleging therein that the petitioner-accused, who was well known to him and had friendly relations, asked for a sum of Rs. 33,000/- on return basis. Complainant on the aforesaid request having been made by the accused lent the aforesaid amount to the complainant and when the complainant demanded the money back, accused with a view to discharge his liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 035139 dated 28.7.2008, drawn at Central Bank of India, Bhuntar branch, in favour of the complainant, however, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on its presentation vide memo dated 15.10.2008, with remarks "insufficient funds". Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the stipulated period despite issuance of legal notice dated 20.10.2008, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.5.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.5.2018, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, representing the petitioner, under instructions of the petitioner-accused, who is present in Court, informed this Court that entire amount i.e. 60,000/- stands deposited before the learned trial Court in two equal installments being draft No. 217641 dated 4.1.2017 and Draft No. 217664 dated 30.1.2017 Rs. 30,000/- each. Learned counsel while placing on record the photo copies of the receipts, stated that since entire amount stands deposited, instant case can be ordered to be compounded by this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act. She also invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , and prayed that petitioner accused may be acquitted of the charge farmed against him. 6. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel, under instructions of his client, who is present in Court stated that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioner-accused subject to condition that amount lying deposited in the learned trial Court shall be released in favour of the complainant. Respondent-complainant stated on oath that he has amicably compromised the matter with the accused of his free will and volition and without there being external pressure and he shall have no objection in case judgment of conviction recorded by the learned courts below are quashed and set-aside and accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. His statement is taken on record. 7. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid development as well as fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. His statement is taken on record. 7. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid development as well as fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case (supra), has categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to order compounding of offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. Accordingly, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. Needless to say, amount lying deposited in the learned trial Court shall be released in favour of the complainant on his making appropriate application. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any