1. 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 order of sentence dated 11.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh.

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under 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 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 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 pr