THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.865 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The second respondent herein filed a private complaint under section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nirmal stating that the second petitioner in the capacity of the proprietor of the first petitioner firm issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,60,831/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and on presentation the same was bounced. The learned Magistrate took the same into cognizance as C.C.No.469 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. During the course of trial P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the complainant and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. The learned Magistrate, having assessed the said evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner questioned the said judgment dated 17.06.2002 by way of Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2002 and the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Adilabad by his judgment dated 04.05.2004, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence the present revision. 2 This court while admitting this revision, granted bail to the petitioner on 11.05.2004. It appears, during the pendency of this revision, there was a settlement between the petitioners and the second respondent and in the light of the said settlement the petitioner herein paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the second respondent. In those circumstances, both the petitioner and the second respondent appeared before this court today. When questioned the second respondent stated that he received the said amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and hence he is not interested in getting the matter prosecuted further. 3 As the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act is compoundable, and as there was settlement between the parties, this court is of the view that the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below can be set aside. 4 Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the judgments of both the courts below are hereby set aside. ----------------- 17.02.2011 Sri T.G.K, J. Kvsn