1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment dated 19.12.2014 in Crl.A.No.128 of 2012 passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby conviction recorded by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide order dated 27.09.2012 in C.C.No.708 of 2008 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is modified and sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment imposed on the accused is set aside and is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner.

2. The parties are being referred to as per their positions before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Case of the complainant is, on 05.04.2007, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, by executing promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and thereafter on 05.08.2007, accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards satisfaction of the above debt and when he presented the said cheque for collection, the same was returned unpaid with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’, and having received legal notice also, accused didn’t repay the said amount.

4. As seen from the docket proceedings dated 22.07.2026, the accused paid an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- to the respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement and that there are no further amounts due and payable by the accused to the respondent No.2 and in view of the settlement between both the parties, this Court directed the petitioner to file such proof.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed memo dated 23.07.2026 along with notarized affidavit dated 14.07.2015 executed by the complainant coupled with his notarized aadhaar card and original receipt on even date, which clearly reveal that the complainant received an amount of Rs.2,95,000/-towards full and final settlement in Crl.R.C.No.216 of 2015 i.e., this case and also given notarized affidavit to that effect by clearly mentioning the details of the case that he had filed private compliant in C.C.No.708 of 2008 and at the culmination of trial, the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada passed the Judgment of conviction and sentence and feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2012 and the same is also confirmed by the learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and in the said case, the learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge modified the sentence of imprisonment into fine for Rs.3,00,000/- and feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred this revision case.

6. In this regard, it is to be noted that in K.M.Ibrahim Vs. K.P.Mohammad and another ([2010 (1) SCC 798]), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

                  "If the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is compromised, during the pendency of appeal, the conviction and sentence have to be set aside, in view of the compromise between both the parties and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to the appellate court also".

7. Further, in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Manchan Mehta ([2018 (1) SCC 560]), the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

                  "This court has noticed 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. Dishonour 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 noticed that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable".

8. As per the version of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, during pendency of this case, having received the amount of Rs.2,95,000/-towards full and final settlement out of Rs.3,00,000/-, respondent No.2 has not been attending the Court and has not been cooperating the accused to file compromise petition. As seen from the docket proceedings also, notice is served on respondent No.2, but he remained absent. Though an opportunity is given to the respondent No.2, he failed to appear. Record clearly reveals that the matter has already been settled for Rs.2,95,000/- against the original fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The revision petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025 requesting this Court to acquit him of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and he also filed memo stating that he had no means to pay the penalty amount of 20% of cheque amount and requested to waive the said amount.

9. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court came to conclusion that the matter has already been settled, complainant also executed notarized affidavit to that effect by receiving Rs.2,95,000/- towards full and final settlement out of fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and as such, the same is placed on record, for disposal of this revision case. Added to it, there is no substantive sentence of punishment and the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified as fine of Rs.3,00,000/- by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and judgment dated 19.12.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2012 passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is be and hereby set aside, and that the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.