RAJESH BINDAL J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court challenging his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)/Fast Track Court, Ambala. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and was directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When the petition came up for hearing on 19.03.2008, this Court passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay the amount of cheque and also compensate the respondent-complainant suitably. He further submits that instead of paying the amount of Rs. 60,000/-, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant to settle the dispute and also pray that accordingly his conviction and sentence be also set aside. Learned counsel for the complainant is present in Court and submits that offer made by the petitioner is acceptable to him and in case an amount of Rs. 90,000/- paid to him, he will have no objection for setting aside the conviction of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(Civil) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) Law Herald 3843 (SC). A sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been paid today by the petitioner through Demand Draft Nos. 434405, 434406 and 434407 dated 19.03.2008 of Rs. 20,000/- each drawn by State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, which have been handed over to the counsel for the complainant. They will bring balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- on the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 20.03.2008." 2. In terms of the aforesaid order passed yesterday, today another sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant, who is present in Court in person by way of Demand Draft No.101841 dated 19.03.2008 drawn by ICICI Bank. The complainant further submits that the dispute between the parties has been compromised and he has no objection for setting aside the conviction of the petitioner and consequently the sentence awarded to him, as a sum of Rs. 90,000/- paid by the petitioner is acceptable to him as full and final settlement of his claim towards him. 3. Once the parties have settled their dispute, in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(Civil) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) Law Herald 3843 (SC), the offence committed by the petitioner for which he has been convicted, is compoundable. 4. Accordingly, it is directed that the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below in the case of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith. 5. The petition is disposed of. 6. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. Order accordingly.;