1 Bail Slip: The Appellant / Accused NO. 2 Dakshinamoorthy was directed to be released on bail as per the Court dated: 11.3.2011 made in MP.No. 1 of 2011 in Crl. R.C.No. 48 OF 2011. BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.48 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.M/s.Prakasam Trading Company, 3, Obli Street, Gugai, Salem through its Mandate Holder/ Proprietor Dakhsinamoorthy. 2.Dakhsinamoorthy : Petitioners Vs. Rajaram Mills (P) Ltd., 13 E, Cotton Market, Rajapalayam, through its Director S.R.Radhakrishnaraja : Respondent Criminal Revisions filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside conviction and sentence made in Crl.A.No.116/06 dated 23.12.2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur modifying the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.568 of 03 dated 20.06.2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Rajapalayam and acquit the petitioners herein by allowing this Crl.R.C. For Petitioners : M/s.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondent : No appearance. ORDER This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence made in Crl.A.No.116/06 dated 23.12.2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur modifying the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.568 of 03 dated 20.06.2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Rajapalayam and to acquit the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.568 of 2003, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. The private complaint was filed by the respondent against these petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,564/- as compensation. The petitioners took the matter in appeal in Crl.A.No.116 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sessions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, and the appellate Court modified the conviction and sentence to the effect that the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation and as against this, the petitioners have preferred this revision. 3. Pending the hearing of the revision, both the parties have entered into an agreement, as evident from the written agreement, between the petitioners and the respondent viz., Rajaram Mills (P) Ltd., Rajapalayam. Both the parties have agreed therein to settle the issue on payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. The payment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by means of a Demand Drafts for Rs.70,000/- and Rs.80,000/- totally Rs.1,50,000/- of Indian Bank, Sevvaipettai Branch at Salem. One S.R.Dhanushkodi Raja who is the brother of this respondent S.R.Radhakrishna Raja has put his signature in the agreement on behalf of the respondent mills. Even though the name of the respondent S.R.Radhakrishna Raja has been typed in the agreement he has not affixed the signature. But, the fact of receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- has been acknowledged by his brother S.R.Dhanushodi Raja, as the Executive Director of the respondent mills. 4. This Court directed the petitioners to file an affidavit setting out all the transactions transpired between the parties with regard to the settlement. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed an affidavit stating that as agreed by both parties, the petitioners have paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent. The private notice in this Criminal Revision taken by the petitioners has been received by the respondent viz., S.R.Radhakrishna Raja personally. But, he has not appeared before the Court. 5. The above said circumstances would go to show that there was an agreement between both parties to settle the dispute with payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent and the same was also paid. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Courts below have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed. The bail bond executed by the petitioners shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. 2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur. 1CC TO MR. M.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, ADVOCATE, SR: 21923: DM::2011:JULY::19:: Crl.R.C.(MD) No.48 of 2011 2P:4C:: 06.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/