Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mayank Shukla, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2007 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution), Lucknow convicting the revisionist under Section 138 N.R. Act and sentencing him for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/ - and Rs. 1,40,000/ - as compensation to be paid within three months and in default of payment of compensation additional 1 and 1/2 months further simple imprisonment. Aggrieved with the said order an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed and upheld the judgment and order passed by the trial below. Submission of Learned Counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party No. 2 which is a Bank, has advanced the amount to the revisionist and now a compromise has been entered between the parties and the revisionist during the pendency of the appeal paid Rs. 72499/ - to the Bank -O.P. No. 2 which is admitted by the counsel for the Bank. His further submission is that rest of the amount has been deposited in the trial court but the said amount could not be released by the trial court on account of the fact that the revision is pending against the conviction of the revisionist in this Court. He, therefore, prays that the revision may be decided in terms of the compromise so that the amount deposited in the trial court may be withdrawn by the opposite party No. 2 -Bank.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed and Anr., LXVIII 2010 ACC 345 and has submitted that even after conviction if the parties have entered into compromise then taking the provisions of;