1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2009 Makam Gangaiah s/o Makkam ..Applicant. V E R S U S M/s Kirti Construction Co. Ltd., and anr. ...Respondents. Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Compromise terms are taken on record. 2. Heard the counsel. Both the counsel informs, between the complainant and accused (revision petitioner), matter is indeed compounded and finally worked out. The accused (revision Petitioner) has paid an amount of Rs.24.00 lacs (subject amount of cheque), paid through demand draft No.1780 Rs. 4,50,000/- and DD No.1730 Rs.19,50,000/-. The complainant present, identified by his counsel acknowledged the receipts of the demand draft, in discharge of full liability of the subject matter of the complaint. 3. The prosecution under section 138, by virtue of provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of what has transpired between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein the order under challenge of Learned Judicial Magistrate dated 28.04.2006 in STCC No.15093/2002 and also 2 the order of Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.22/2004 confirming the order of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, dated 28.04.206, is set aside. Since both the orders are set aside, conviction of the accused-revision petitioner recorded, results in acquittal. 4. Fine amount if any, be refunded to the accused-revision petitioner. 5- An amount of Rs.4,50,000/- deposited in this Court by order dated 10.11.2006 in Criminal Writ Petition No.661/2006, arising out of same proceeding, be paid over to the original accused-revision petitioner Makkam Gangaiah s/o Makkam. 6- The criminal revision application disposed off in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ) **** aaa/113.09