1. dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2016 Ist Class, Amritsar, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation 2. The challenge in the present criminal revis dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2016 passed by Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and passed by learned Judicial Magistrate vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced 1 year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Section 138 of the NI Act are that petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.12 had purchased certain items from the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,76,000/-. In discharge of the said liability, petitioner No.1 as authorized signatory issued a cheque No.028147 dated 03.11.2008 for Rs.4,76,000/- drawn on SBI, Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, on behalf of petitioner No.2, in favour of the complainant’s proprietorship concern. However, on presentation thereof, the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks “Payment Stopped by drawer”. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioners failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against them were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act, pursuant to which, petitioner-Tarlochan Singh appeared and was released on bail. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, proprietor of the complainant examined as CW 1 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence. 4. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, to undergo the imprisonment and to pay compensation, as stated above. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned judgment dated 17.04.2017. 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that the compromise has now been arrived at between the parties, based on which CRM-6702-2026 has been filed under Section 147 of NI Act read with Section 359 of BNS for compounding the offence. As per the settlement, he has paid Rs.1 lakh by way of draft to respondents No.3 to 6 on 06.02.2026, which is over and above the amounts already deposited by the petitioners before the First Appellate Court and this Court. The parties now do not wish to pursue with the matter. He prays that the fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of his advanced age of 72 years and the poor financial condition of petitioner No.1. He has with great difficulty, managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, 12 years having gone by. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6 affirms the factum of compromise arrived at and in pursuant thereto, they have received the amount as agreed. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted. However, he prays for releasing the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, deposited with the Appellate Court and this Court, respectively, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. 8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V.Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus: “10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein: “This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable.” 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.” 9. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of K.Subramanian vs. R.Rajathi (2010) 15 SCC 352, has held as under:- “6. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Code. 7. xx xx xx 8. The CRL.M.P. No.12804 of 2009 in which the prayer is made by petitioner to permit him to produce affidavits sworn by him on December 1, 2008 as well as affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan power of attorney PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. holder of R. Rajathi on December 1, 2008, as additional documents is allowed. CRL. M.P. No.12803 of 2009 in which the petitioner has prayed to permit him to compound the offence and acquit him by setting aside the conviction recorded in Criminal case No. 726/2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the Courts are hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charge leveled against him.” 10. The compounding of the offence at later stages of litigation in cases under Section 138 of NI Act has also been held to be permissible by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in a case of K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed & Anr., 2009 (14) SCALE 262, wherein it was held as under:- "11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. 12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution." 11. Reiterating the aforesaid Hon’ble The Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010(5) SCC 663 has held that in case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that “It is true that the application under Section 147 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings.” It was further observed that, “Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.” 12. In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment in Damodar S.Prabhu (supra), CRM-6702-2026 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner brought out by his learned counsel, as noticed above, the same is reduced in view of the afore-referred judgment and he is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs, with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority on or before 28.02.2026. The judgment of conviction/order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, deposited by him with Appellate Court and this Court, PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. respectively, be released in favour of respondents No.3 to 6 against proper receipt and identification. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 14. Compliance report be forwarded by the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within a week after deposit of the aforesaid amount. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.13 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.