JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Cr. Revision Petition filed under S.397 CrPC, is directed against judgment dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 15-S/10 of 2018 affirming judgment/order of conviction and sentence dated 4.4.2018/6.4.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 7, Shimla, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 344/3 of 2015 titled as Sharma Shuttering Store vs. Joginder Singh, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter, 'Act'), convicted and sentenced him to Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the respondentcomplainant (hereinafter, 'complainant'). 2. Succinctly the facts, as emerge from the record are that the complainant filed a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 7, Shimla, alleging therein that he had rented shuttering material to the accused, who with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. 0200086 dated 24.3.2015 in favour of the complainant, drawn on IDBI Bank, where accused has maintained an account, as part payment. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on presentation was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. After having received memo from the Bank concerned, complainant served accused with a legal notice, calling upon him to make good the payment within stipulated time. Since the accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings against the accused under S.138 of the Act. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the material adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of the offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly sentenced and convicted him as per description given above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be dismissed on 24.11.2018. In the aforesaid background, accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein his acquittal, after setting aside the impugned judgments/order of conviction passed by both the learned Courts below. 5. In the aforesaid background, accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking therein his acquittal, after setting aside the impugned judgments/order of conviction passed by both the learned Courts below. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the accused, on instructions of his client, stated that entire amount of Rs.60,000/- stands deposited with the learned trial Court and same can be ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. He further stated that since entire amount in terms of judgment of learned trial Court stands deposited with the trial Court and accused has no objection in the release of the same in favour of the complainant, this Court, while exercising power under S.147 of the Act, may proceed to compound the offence. 6. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions of his client, who is present in the Court, fairly stated that in case amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objections to the aforesaid prayer having been made on behalf of the accused. Mr. Rana further contended that since the complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute legal proceedings in the competent Court of law for realisation of his own money, as such, some reasonable amount on account of litigation charges may also be awarded in favour of the complainant. 7. This court, with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the factum with regard to compromise/settlement arrived inter se parties also recorded statement of complainant on oath before this Court, wherein he categorically stated that he, on his own volition, without there being any external pressure, is ready and willing to compromise the matter with the accused, whereby he shall have no objection in compounding the offence in case, amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in his favour. His statement is taken on record. 8. His statement is taken on record. 8. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition for compounding of the offence, while exercising power under S.147 of the Act as well as in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Courts, while exercising power under S.147 of the Act can proceed to compound the offence even in those cases, where accused has been convicted. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), impugned judgments/order of conviction and sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the petitioner are discharged. Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs. 60,000/- lying deposited with it, in favour of complainant, on his making application in this regard, forthwith. Further, the accused is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- in lump sum, on account of litigation charges etc. to the complainant within a period of four weeks, failing which the accused will render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of court proceedings. In the event of non-payment of aforesaid amount by the accused within the stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that an appropriate action is taken against the accused in accordance with law. 10. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications, if any.