HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.M.P.No.668 of 2011 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.504 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 09.03.2006, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2004 by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur. The petitioner herein was prosecuted in C.C.No.30 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”). After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, convicted the petitioner and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also directed that the fine be paid to the complainant as compensation, vide judgment dated 11.12.2003. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2004 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, and the learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but modified the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months, besides confirming the fine, vide judgment, dated 09.03.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. Heard both sides. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent-defacto complainant that during pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the matter was compromised between the parties and to that effect they filed Crl.R.C.M.P.No.668 of 2011 before this Court seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by compounding the offence and acquit him. Therefore, they prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are present before this Court. The 1st respondent stated that on the advice of elders and well-wishers, himself and the petitioner have compromised the matter out of Court and therefore he intends to compound the offence with free will and consent and there is no coercion or undue influence from any other side for the same. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that the offence can be compounded, by invoking the provisions under Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.668 of 2011 and Crl.R.C.No.504 of 2006 are allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner- accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act in C.C.No.30 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, by judgment dated 11.12.2003, as confirmed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, in Crl.A.No.1 of 2004, by judgment dated 09.03.2006, are hereby set aside and consequently the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the said offence. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 1st March, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.M.P.No.668 of 2011 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.504 of 2006 DATE:01.03.2011 Between : Marella Venkata Krishna Rao … Petitioner/ Accused and Base Pullayya @ Pallayya and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.M.P.No.668 of 2011 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.504 of 2006 (Allowed) 1st March, 2011 CBS