JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that complainant/respondent No.1 instituted a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that the cheque of Rs. 75, 000/- handed over by the petitioner to complainant/respondent No.1 in order to discharge his liability to pay the debt had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of respondent No.1 by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 90, 000/- i.e. cheque amount Rs. 75, 000/- and Rs. 15, 000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant/respondent No.1 due to non payment and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for commission of the offence punishable under the Act. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 05.09.2008, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.12.2009, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the compensation amount of Rs. 90, 000/- as awarded by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, stands deposited by the petitioner and vide order dated 23.04.2018 he had undertaken to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 40, 000/- so as to enable him to seek quashment/compounding of the proceedings. Even this additional amount of Rs. 40, 000/- now stands deposited by the petitioner. 4. Now, the moot question is whether after depositing compensation amount along with additional amount of Rs. 40, 000/-, the imprisonment can be waived off. 5. This question is no longer res integra in view of the three Hon''ble Judges'' Bench decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Nagpal versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another , (2018) 3 SCC 249 and P.Ramadas versus State of Kerala and another , (2018) 3 SCC 287 , wherein it is clearly held that waiver of imprisonment in lieu of payment of additional compensation is permissible, though under exceptional circumstances. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is ordered that the impugned substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed in this case shall stand modified and substituted with a direction that the entire amount of Rs. 90, 000/- shall be paid as compensation to complainant/respondent No.1 and in addition thereto, complainant/respondent No.1 shall be entitled to the sum of Rs. 40, 000/- deposited in the Registry of this Court pursuant to the directions dated 23.04.2018. 7. Consequently, the amount(s) deposited by the petitioner from time to time are ordered to be released in favour of complainant/ respondent No.1 by the concerned Court(s) as per procedure by remitting the same to his bank account as and when furnished. 8. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.