HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.405 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein-sole accused was tried by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.904 of 1999, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant-1st respondent herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner- accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On a careful consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by judgment dated 19.01.2001. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.64 of 2001 on the file of the III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the said appeal was dismissed on 16.04.2002, while confirming the judgment of the trial court, but modified the sentence of six months by substituting its place with compensation of Rs.50,000/- payable by the petitioner-accused to the 1st respondent-complainant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-accused preferred this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they arrayed in C.C.No.904 of 1999. 3. It is mainly contended by Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the accused, that the lower appellate court ought not have dismissed the appeal for the reason that the accused and the complainant have entered into a compromise before the lower appellate court and both parties requested that the accused may be ordered to be acquitted. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.16 of the judgment of the lower appellate court. It is further contended by the learned counsel that mere drafting of judgment cannot be a ground for the lower appellate court to refuse to record the compromise entered into between the parties, and as such, the judgment of the lower appellate court is erroneous. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that against the judgment of the lower appellate court, the complainant filed Crl.R.C.No.1061 of 2002 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 26.08.2002, allowed the said revision at the stage of admission, by setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court, for fresh disposal, according to law. 5. Having considered the said submissions and perused the judgment of the lower appellate court as well as the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1061 of 2002, this Court felt that it is desirable that the matter be compromised, and accordingly, this Court advises both the parties to enter into a compromise. Pursuant thereto, both the parties have filed a Memorandum of Compromise before this Court, signed by them and countersigned by their respective counsel, under section 147 of N.I. Act. The terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Compromise read as thus: a) That in consideration of paying Rs.2,25,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent, the respondent agree to allow this Criminal R.C.No.405 of 2004 by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner and to vacate the flat bearing No.404, Maheshwari Apartments, Yousufguda, Hyderabad by 31.12.2010 and further agreed not to prosecute the Second Appeal S.R.Nos. pending as said above. b) That accordingly the petitioner paid Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty five thousand only) by way of cash before this Hon’ble Court to the respondent and the respondent hereby acknowledges the receipt of the same. c) That the respondent hereby agree that he has no objection to allow this Criminal Revision and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the said C.C.No.904 of 1999 and confirmed in the said Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2001 and accordingly prays to pass the said order. d) That the respondent hereby agrees and undertakes to vacate flat No.404 of Maheshwari Apartments, Yousufguda, Hyderabad by 31.12.2010 and put the petitioner in vacant possession of the same and for any reason if the respondent did not vacate the petitioner can enforce the same as an order of this Hon’ble Court. The respondent need not pay any rent from here onwards till 31.12.2010. e) That the petitioner hereby agrees and undertakes that he will see that Second Appeal filed by his son T.Rambabu and his daughter G.Vijaya Lakshmi against the said A.S.No.124 of 2005 will not be prosecuted and will be withdrawn immediately. f) That the respondent hereby agrees and undertakes that the Second Appeal filed by him against the said A.S.No.223 of 2005 will not be prosecuted and will be withdrawn immediately. g) That both parties hereby declare that they have no other claims against each other including the son and daughter of the petitioner as mentioned above. 6. In the light of the compromise entered into between the parties and an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has also been paid to the complainant in open Court, which is acknowledged by the complainant, this Court is of the view that the said compromise can be recorded and the accused can be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 7. Pursuant to the judgment, dated 26.08.2002, passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1061 of 2002, Crl.A.No.64 of 2001 is restored before the lower appellate court. However, in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties and this Court is recording the acquittal of the accused, in my considered view, there is no need to keep the said appeal pending. When the charge itself is compounded, the question of maintaining an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court does not arise. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 11th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.405 of 2004 (Allowed) 11th June, 2010 CBS