THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1603 OF 2003 ORDER: The respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). The learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C. No.1108 of 1999. During the course of trial, the respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P-1 to P-49 were marked. Having analyzed the said evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The said judgment was questioned by filing Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2000 and the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by his judgment dated 30-06-2003 while holding that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, however, reduced the sentence from three months to two months. Questioning the same, the accused filed this revision. 2. This Court admitted the revision on 20-03-2004. As the petitioner was absent on the date when the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court, this Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate and in the event of his surrender, directed the trial Court to release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each. 3. During the pendency of this revision, it appears that the matter was settled between the parties and the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- i.e. the cheque amount, to the respondent towards full and final settlement. One Mohammed Aqtar, representative the respondent company, and the petitioner are present and when questioned, the representative of the respondent company stated that he is instructed to state before this Court that the respondent company is not interested to get the matter prosecuted, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and as per the instructions, he can receive the said amount. Petitioner brought a Demand Draft dated 16-09-2010 bearing No. 176563 drawn on UCO Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch at Hyderabad and handed it over to the respondent. 4. In view of the payment made by the petitioner - accused and the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable, the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court and the other proceedings initiated against the petitioner are hereby set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J October 07, 2010. KTL