THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1935; 1936 & 1937 of 2002 DATED: 18-03-2010 COMMON ORDER: As these three cases are between the same parties and they are interrelated, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner herein obtained hand loan and in lieu thereof, he issued three cheques drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Mallapur Branch, Hyderabad, but the said cheques were bounced with an endorsement ‘insufficiency of funds’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), three complaints in C.C.Nos.381; 382 and 383 of 1999 have been filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, East & North, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar took cognizance thereof and thereafter, after trial convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the learned Magistrate invoking the provisions under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- in each case. The said judgments were pronounced on 18-12-2000. As against the said judgments, petitioner preferred three appeals in Crl.A.Nos.210; 211 & 212 of 2000 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Rangareddy District, while confirming the said sentence and compensation amount, awarded by the Court below, dismissed the said appeals by judgments dated 10-12-2002. Assailing the said judgments, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Cases. 3. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already served the said sentence and fine of Rs.2000/- in each case, and in the suit filed by the respondent, both the parties entered into compromise and as per the said compromise the entire amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid and to establish the same, he produced the certified copy of Memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties. 4. Having verified the said Memorandum of compromise and also taking the fact that the petitioner had undergone the entire sentence, into consideration there is no need to decide these revisions again on merits. 5. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th March, 2010. Tsy