THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2328 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The first respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein before the learned XV Additional Judge cum XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad stating that the petitioner issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and on presentation the same was bounced. The learned Magistrate took the same into cognizance as C.C.No.196 of 2009 for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. During the course of trial the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked. The learned trial Judge, having assessed the said evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks. Petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 27.10.2009 by way of Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2009 and the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad by his judgment dated 22.11.2010, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 2 This court while admitting this revision, granted bail to the petitioner on 16.12.2010. It appears, during the pendency of this revision, there was a settlement between the petitioners and the first respondent and in the light of the said settlement the petitioner herein paid the cheque amount to the first respondent. In those circumstances, both the petitioner and the first respondent appeared before this court today. When questioned the first respondent stated that he received the said cheque amount and hence he was no grievance if the said offence is compounded and that he is not interested in getting the matter prosecuted further. 3 As the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act is compoundable, and as there was settlement between the parties, this court is of the view that the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below can be set aside. 4 Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the judgments of both the courts below are hereby set aside. ----------------- 18.02.2011 Sri T.G.K, J. Kvsn