Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant-bank, that sum of Rs.3,90,000/- deposited by the accused cannot be considered to have been deposited in lieu of cheque amount. Admittedly, in the case at hand, loan account of the accused had become irregular on account of non-payment of installments and accused with a view to regularize his loan account issued cheque amounting to Rs.3,80,000/-, which was dishonoured. However, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, which were initiated on account of dishonour of cheque issued by the accused, accused deposited sum of Rs.3,90,000/-, as such, this Court is persuaded to conclude that sum of Rs.3,90,000/- deposited by the accused during the pendency of complaint under Section 138 of the Act was in lieu of cheque, which was also issued for getting the loan account regularized. Once accused has already paid cheque amount that too during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, there was no reason for the Court below to reject the application filed by the accused under Section 147 of the Act for compounding the offence. Otherwise also, this Court is of the view that offence under Section 138 of the Act, alleged to have been committed by the accused, is yet to be proved in accordance with law. It was before conclusion of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act that accused proceeded to deposit the amount, whereafter, there
