(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal RevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.832 of 2010 by the Addl. Judivial First Class MAgistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District and confirmed in Crl.AppealNo.227 of 2012 on the file of XV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nizvid, Krishna District and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 374 OF 2015

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of calendar and judgment dated 11.12.2012 made in C.C.No.832 of 2010 by the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 386 OF 2015

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Judgment dt.11.12.2012 made in C.C.No.832 of 2010 by the Addl. Judivial First Class MAgistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District and confirmed in Crl.AppealNo.227 of 2012 on the file of XV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nizvid, Krishna District and to enlarge the petitoiner on bial in CC.No.832 of 2010 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner and 1st respondent to compound the offence under section 138 of Nl Act and set aside the conviction in calendar and judgment dated 11-12-2012 made in C.C. No. 832 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, as confirmed by the appellant court in Judgment dated 12-02-2015 made in CrI. Appeal No. 227 of 2012 on the file of XV Addl. District and Session Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offence under section 138 of Nl Act and set aside the conviction in calendar and judgment dated 11-12-2012 made in C.C. No. 832 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District as confirmed by the appellant court in Judgment dated 12-02-2015 made in CrI.Appeal No. 227 of 2012 on the file of XV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District and pass)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Judgment dated 12.02.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2012 passed by the learned XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, wherein conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru vide order dated 11.12.2012 in C.C.No.832 of 2010 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are confirmed 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 that he is doing commission business on paddy and accused also doing the business of aparalu and paddy and for the past two years, he had been purchasing paddy from farmers and supplying the same to the accused through lorries. While so, on 06.03.2010, he supplied sambha paddy to the accused through lorry bearing No.AP16 TU 4383. The accused issued a patty in respect of the said transaction and value of the supplied paddy is Rs.3,63,400/-. Despite repeated demands, the accused failed to pay the amount. Finally, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.050323 dated 16.03.2010 drawn on Karoor Vysya Bank, Khammam for Rs.2,00,000/- towards part payment of the debt and requested the complainant to present it after two months and he also demanded the accused to pay balance of the payment of the patty on 24.04.2010. For which, the accused issued another cheque bearing No.048799 for Rs.1,50,000/- in his favour towards part payment of the said patty. When the complainant presented the said two cheques before Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Cheemalapadu Branch, the same were returned with endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Despite receipt of the legal notice, accused didn’t repay the said amount.

4. The offence under Section 138 of the Act is a compoundable offence. As per the version of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, with the intervention of the elders and well wishers, the dispute was amicably settled out of Court and accused agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, accused paid the said amount in the presence of the elders and to that effect, both parties filed petitions in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 along with affidavits and joint compromise memo, requesting this Court to give permission to compound the offence. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused may be acquitted by allowing the present revision as complainant has received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement.

5. 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 as follows:

                  "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".

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

                  "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 set back. 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".

7. For the foregoing reasons and having given thoughtful consideration to the above propositions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court came to conclusion that permission may be given to both the parties, to compound the offence. Added to it, complainant submitted that he has received Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and he has no objection to allow the revision by acquitting the accused. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that accused is not in a position to pay penalty amount and requested to waive the penalty amount of 20% of cheque amount. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and in view of the judgment in Rajeev Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra & Another3 , this Court came to conclusion that penalty amount at 20% of the cheque amount as per the principle laid down in Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal4 can be waived.

8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, and conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2012 passed by the learned XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuzvid are be and hereby set aside and thereby, accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

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