IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2011 and Cr.M.P.No. 925 of 2011. Date of decision: 13.12.2011. Vinay Kumar son of late Sh. Sushil Kumar R/o 182/1, Ganj Bazaar, Opposite Roshan Lal & Company, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Sh. Mohammad Mobin, son of Sh. Amiru Deen, R/o Idgah Colony, Lakkar Bazaar, Shimla-1, H.P. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate with Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘Act’). The conviction and sentence dated 27/29.9.2010 of the petitioner passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla in Case No. 3122-3 of 10/09 has been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla on 20.7.2011 in Cr. Appeal No. 49-S/10 of 2010. __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 2. The learned counsel for the parties has stated that the parties have filed joint application for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It has been stated that the application has been signed by both the parties and their counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has also deposited ` 5250/- 15% of the cheque amount of ` 35,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has stated that respondent No.1 has no objection in case the matter is compounded and conviction and sentence of the petitioner imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower Appellate Court is set-aside. 4. I have gone through the application which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. The parties have settled the dispute, therefore, in the interest of justice the matter is allowed to be compounded. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner imposed by the trial Court on 27/29.9.2010 and upheld by the lower Appellate Court on 20.7.2011 are set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the accusation. The amount of ` 35,000/- lying in deposit in the trial Court in pursuance of the judgment dated 27/29.9.2010, be released in favour of respondent No.1. The amount of ` 5250/- deposited by the petitioner shall be remitted in the H.P.High Court Legal Services Committee account in terms of Damodar S.Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663. The petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s) if any. December 13, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge