THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE MP No.2826 of 2010 in CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1912 of 2010 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1912 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.353 of 2007 by the IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short – ‘the Act’), in C.C.No.264 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st respondent to meet his family expenses, executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum and, when the 1st respondent demanded repayment of the amount, issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- bearing No.024258 dated 05.11.2005 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Brodipet branch, Guntur, towards part payment of the said promissory note amount and the 1st respondent presented the same for collection on 05.11.2005. On 24.11.2005, the said cheque was dishonoured by the banker due to insufficiency of funds under intimation to the 1st respondent. On 25.11.2005, the 1st respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused demanding to repay the cheque amount. The petitioner-accused, though received the said notice on 26.11.2005, did not choose to pay the cheque amount. During the course of trial, the 1st respondent himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner-accused, though no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. Having analyzed the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 17.10.2007, came to conclusion that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Questioning the same, the petitioner-accused filed Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2007 before the appellate Court and the same was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material on record. It appears that both the parties have entered into compromise and the petitioner-accused paid the amount due under the dishonoured cheque to the 1st respondent. Hence, the accused approached this Court and filed the present revision case along with an application with a prayer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. The parties are present. Having regard to the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and since the amount due by the petitioner-accused under the dishonoured cheque has already been paid to the 1st respondent and since the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable, the application filed with a prayer to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act is allowed and the entire proceedings against the petitioner-accused are hereby set aside. This Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, allowed. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-accused shall be refunded to him. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th September 2010 CVRK