Criminal Revision No.700/2011 3.10.2011 Shri V.K. Gangwal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.A. Bohra, Advocate for the non-applicant. Applicant Mohanlal and non-applicant Prabhulal are also present in person. Heard on I.A. No. 6331/2011, an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicant and the non-applicant have arrived at a settlement and prayed for compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. It is submitted that there was a loan transaction between the parties and in furtherance to that transaction a cheque amount to Rs.50,000/- was issued to the non- applicant which were dishonoured and, therefore, the complaint was lodged by the non-applicant under Section 138 of the Act. After trial the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.8.2010, passed in Criminal Case No.2403/07 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to SI for six months with fine of Rs.55,000/-. The appeal filed by the applicant has been partly allowed by the impugned judgment whereby conviction of the applicant has been maintained, but the jail sentence has been reduced to three months only. Leaned counsel for the non-applicant made a statement at Bar compromise has taken place between the parties, outside the Court and in pursuance to that the complainant non-applicant has received an amount of Rs.55,000/- from the applicant-accused and prayer is made for compounding the offence under Section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu v/s Sayad Bablal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 and submitted that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence be allowed and the offence be compounded, because the applicant has already paid the whole amount with costs and expenses to the non-applicant. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the application for compounding is made before a High Court in revision, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused must pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. The Supreme Court also obsrved that the competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Considering the aforesaid, the I.A. No.6331/11 is allowed on the condition that the applicant shall pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs, if not paid. With the aforesaid, the Criminal Revision stand allowed and disposed of. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*