JUDGMENT M.G. Giratkar, J. - Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned JMFC has convicted the applicant (hereinafter referred as accused for the sake of brevity) for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer SI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/, in default, to further suffer SI for 15 days. Out of fine amount of Rs. 50,000/, Rs. 40,000/are to be given to the complainant/ respondent by way of compensation. 3. Shri Gandhi, learned Counsel has submitted that accused has already paid Rs. 50,000/. He has deposited Rs. 43,000/before the trial Court and Rs. 7,000/before this Court. He has pointed out the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 5451 of 2017 - M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another .v. Kanchan Mehta). As per the said judgment, if the entire amount is paid by the accused then without any consent, the Court, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion, close proceedings and discharge the accused. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that accused is a permanent disabled. He is not doing any work. During the course of argument, he has produced the disability certificates. The same are taken on record and marked as "XI" and "XII" for identification. At last, he has submitted that the revision may be allowed and as per the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court cited supra, impugned judgment of trial Court be modified. 5. Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cheque was issued in the year 2006 and since then respondent is deprived of the interest and, therefore, he be compensated fully. He has further submitted that as per the judgment of trial Court, accused had to pay Rs. 40,000/towards compensation. In fact, cheque was of Rs. 43,400/. 6. There is no dispute that as per the judgment of trial Court, accused has deposited Rs. 43,000/before the trial Court and Rs. 7,000/before this Court vide Demand Draft No. 390384 of Andhra Bank. 7. In the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court (cited supra), the guidelines given in para 18 as under : " 18. 43,400/. 6. There is no dispute that as per the judgment of trial Court, accused has deposited Rs. 43,000/before the trial Court and Rs. 7,000/before this Court vide Demand Draft No. 390384 of Andhra Bank. 7. In the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court (cited supra), the guidelines given in para 18 as under : " 18. From the above discussion, following aspects emerge : (i) ... (ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. (iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion, close the proceedings and discharge the accused. (iv) ... (v) ..." 8. From the disability certificates, it appears that accused is having 90 per cent permanent disability. He has already deposited Rs. 50,000/. At the same time, the complainant/respondent needs to be compensated. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court needs to be modified. In that view of the matter, following order is passed. Revision is partly allowed. Impugned judgment is maintained as it is, but modified as underAccused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/to the complainant. Amount of compensation (fine) is already deposited by the accused. Complainant/respondent is at liberty to withdraw Rs. 50,000/from the concerned Court. The amount of Rs. 7,000/deposited in this Court by Demand Draft No. 390384 of Andhra Bank be remitted to the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Court No.1 Akola. 9. In view of the modification, the applicant/accused need not undergo jail sentence.