APHC010253922010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO lA. Nos 2 to 6 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1948 OF 2010 Criminal Revision case under Section 397& 401 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, against the Judgment date 13-10-2010 passed in Crl.A. No. 71 of 2009 on the file of the PrI. Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirming the Judgment dated 18-05-2009 passed in CC. No. 329 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty. Between: 1. V. Jayarami Reddy, S/o. Chinna Sanjeeva Reddy, aged 45, partner. Fertilizers, Kasapuram Road Jayalakshmi Guntakal Town, Anantapuram District 2. P. Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, aged 48, Partner, Jayalakshmi Fertilizers, Kasapuram Road, Guntakal Town, Anantapuram Town ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND M/S Sri Balaji Fertilizers Gooty, Rep by its Sole Proprietor, U.Nageshwara Reddy, S/o. U.C. Venkateswar Reddy, Near State Bank of India, Gooty Town, Anantapur District. ■ ; ■ -S" (R1 Cause Title is amended as per the Court Order dated 25/06/2025 in lA. NO. 01/2025 in CrI.RC. No. 1948/2010) ....RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2010rCRLRCMP 2866 OF 2010 Petition under Section 397 (1) Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the operation of sentence imposed by the judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CrI.A.No. 71/2009 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty by confirming the Judgment dated 18-05-09 passed in CC. No.329 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BN NS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone delay of 25 days in representation of IA.Sr.No.43032 of2025 in CRLRC.No.l948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section r/w 359(6) Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 to record the compromise in CRLRC.No.l948 of 2010 the file of this Hon’bte High Court. on lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNNS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the compromise and consequently allow the CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty as confirmed in Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge: Gooty. on lA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (8) r/w Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offence in CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court for setting aside the Judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed Additional Sessions Judge: 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty thereby convicting the Petitioners herein imposing a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 Months. in CRL.A.No.71 of 2009 on the file of the VI Gooty confirming the Judgment dated lA NO: 6 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 147 of NI Act & Section 359 (8) r/w Section BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to reduce the Compoundable Fee which Petitioners have to pay in to the Hon’ble Court for compounding ^0^ the Offence in CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 528 of as confirmed in on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge; Gooty. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI Y SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : APHC010253922010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I A Nqs.2 to 6 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1948/2010 Between: REDDY AND ANOTHER,, S/O. CHINNA SANJEEVA KASAPURAM ROAD, 1.V.JAYARAMI REDDY, GUNTAKAL TOWN JAYALAKSHMI FERTILIZERS, S/O. RAMI REDDY, JAYALAKSHMI FERTILIZERS, KASAPURAM ROAD, GUNTAKAL TOWN, 2.P.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY ...PETITIONER(S) AND SRI BALAJI FERTILIZERS, GOOTY, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, U.C.VENKATESU NEAR STATE 1.M/S U.NAGESHWARA REDDY,S/0. BABK OF INDIA, GOOTY TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS 2 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD (As per the orders dated 25.06.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the cause title of Respondent No.1 is amended). ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit the memorandum of Criminal Revision against the judgment dt.13.10.2010 passed in CrI.A.No. 71/2009 on the file of PrI Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirming the judgment dt.18 05 2009 passed in CC,No. 329/2003 on the file of t he Judicial First Class Gooty Magistrate, LA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 2866 OF 7nin Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail by suspending the operation of sentence imposed by the judgment dt.13.10.2010 passed in CrI.A.No. 71/2009 file of PrI Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirming the judgment i passed in CC.No. 329/2003 on the file oft he Judicial First Class Gooty. on the dt.18.05.2009 - Magistrate, lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission for amending the Clause Title portion with respect to Respondent No.2 in Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010, Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition IA.No.1 of 2010 for inserting "M/s Sri Balaji Fertilizers, Gooty. Rep by it's Sole Proprietor, U.Nageswara Reddy s/o U.C.Venkateswar Reddy” by deleting "M/s Jayalakshmi Fertilizers, Gooty, Rep by it's Proprietor U.Nageswar Reddy s/o U.C.Venkatesu" and to pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone delay of 25 days In representation of IA.Sr.No.43032 of2025 in CRLRC.No.l948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 to record the 3 compromise in CRLRC.No.l948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court and pass lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the compromise and consequently allow the CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate; Gooty as confirmed in Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional on Sessions Judge: Gooty and pass lA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased ‘ be pleased to compound the offence in CRLRC.No.l948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate; Gooty as confirmed in Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge; Gooty and pass lA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to reduce the Compoundable Fee which Petitioners have to pay in to the Hon’ble Court for compounding CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty as confirmed in Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge; Gooty and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.Y SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO ay The Court made the following COMMON ORDFR 1. A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused, seeking to condone the delay of 25 days in representing I.A.(SR) No.43032 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.No.1948 of 2010. 2. I.A.Nos.3, 4, 5 of 2025 have been filed, seeking to dispose of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise and I.A.No.6 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners/accused seeking reduce the Compoundable fee for compounding Crl.R.C.No.1948 of 2010. 3. The complainant, who is the 1®‘ respondent, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. r/w.Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘N.l. Act’), stating that he is the sole proprietor of Sri Balaji Fertilizers, operating in Gooty. The petitioners/accused, are the partners of Jayalakshmi Fertilizers, had regular credit-based transactions complainant and owed him money as per the maintained accounts. In part payment, they issued a cheque bearing No. 061809 dated 10.02.2003 for Rs. 1,80,999/-, drawn on Sri Anantha Grameena Bank, Guntakal, signed by both accused. The cheque was returned on 17.02.2003 due to “insufficient funds”. Following a legal notice dated 03.03.2003, the accused paid Rs. 15,000/- on 10.04.2003 but failed to clear the Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.l. against them. 4. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 18.05.2009 in C.C.No.329 of 2003, convicted the accused 1 and 2 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. Additionally, the accused were directed to pay a fine of to the offence in 1881 with the remaining amount. Act was filed 5 Rs.5,000/- each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three (3) months each, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.l.Act. Further directed that if the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-, is realized, out of it Rs.5000/- is awarded to the complainant as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 18.05.2009 in C.C.No.329 of 2003 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellants/A. 1 and A.2 preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.71 of 2009 on the file of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty (for short, “First Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 13.10.2010, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellants/A.1 and A.2 by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 preferred the present Revision. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record, the matter was taken up for hearing, the 6. Today, when petitioners/accused and the 1®’ Respondent/Complainant appeared in person and were identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the compromise, as detailed in the affidavit, were read out and acknowledged as true and correct by all parties. As per the Joint Memo, the complainant stated that the matter has been amicably settled out of court, and the full chegue amount has 7. been paid, and he has no objection to allow the present revision. In Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 8. “21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an Incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding (2010) 5 see 663 6 made after several years not only results In the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. xxx (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. xxx 22. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the court before which compounding takes place. For Instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court a Court of Session, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed In connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those Imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.” or 9. In accordance with the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Revision Petitioners shall pay 15% of the Cheque amount towards the compounding fee. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused submits that the petitioners are the agriculturists and they have no much source of income and requested the Court to take a lenient view in fixing the compounding fee. Considering their financial condition, the Court directed them to pay a compounding fee of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati. The Petitioners/Accused have complied by remitting the amount through Demand Draft No. 631159, dated 11.08.2025, and the receipt has been submitted to the Court. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.4 of 2025, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entered into a Memorandum of compromise. Accordingly, there is no necessity to prosecute the Accused 1 and 2, and the Complainant has no objection to close the against the Accused 1 and 2. 10. case 11. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise, and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, LA.Nos.2 to 6 of 2025, are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of 7 by setting aside the judgment dated 13.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.71 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, dated 18.05.2009 in C.C.No.329 of 2003. Accordingly, the Petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 are acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Gooty, Anantapur District 2. The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gootry, Anantapur District 3. The Principal and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 4. One CC to SRI. Y SUBBA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI. KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati (OUT) 7. Two CD Copies Skm TAC {*along with Joint Compromise memo to the addressees) HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2025 COMMON ORDER I.A. Nos. 2 to 6 of 2025 IN/AND CRLRC NO. 1948 OF 2010 a 0 9 SEP 2025 iTentSectioa. Im! ALL lA. NOS 2 TO 6/25 are allowed and DISPOSING OF THE CRL.RC Joint fvlemo IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PIUADESH AT AMARAVATl CRERC.No.l948 of2010 Between: !. V.Jayarami Reddy s/o Chinna San|ee\ a Reddy. Hindu, Aged: 45 Yrs, Partner, Jaya Lakshmi Fertilizers, Kasapuram Road, Guntakal Town. Anantapur District 2. P.Mallikarjuna Reddy s/o Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged: 48 Yrs, Partner, Jaya Lakshmi Fertilizers, Kasapuram Road, Guntakal Town, Anantapur District .. .Petitioners/Appel lants/Accused AND 1. rhe State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Public Prosecutor, Hiuh C.’oLirt of Judicature at Amrax ati .. .Respondent/Complainant 2. iVl/s Sri Balaji Fertilizers, Gooty, Rep by it’s Sole Proprietor U.Nageswara Reddy s-'o U.G.Venkateswar Reddy, Near State Bank of India, Goot\ ftow n. .'vnantapur District .., Respondeni/Coinplainanl i. The Petitioners humbly submit this Memorandum of Compromise Petition seeking a relief for recordiiig the compromise consequently tor setting aside the Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 ot 2009 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge: Gooty confirming the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file ot Judicial First Class Magistrate: Goo.y there by convicting the Petitioners herein imposing a sentence to undergo simple im.prisonment ol 6 Months and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000-00 each in detault to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 Months, for following reasons 2. it is further submitted that Petitioners herein ha\e preferred CRLRC.No. 1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble High CourCagainst "W im Judgment dt.l3.10.2010 passed in CRLA.Xo.71 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge; Gooty confirming the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty there by convicting the Petitioners herein imposing a sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 Months and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000-00 each in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 Months, while so, same has been admitted, now Petitioners herein are on bail, now matter has been coming up for final hearing. 3. It is further submitted that pending Criminal Revision Case before this Hon’ble Fligh Court, the Petitio to CC.No.329 of 2003 -s and Respondent No.2 the parties nei on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ha\-e settled the matter out of Court, entire Cheque amounts have been paid to Complainant, while so same has not been informed to Petitioners ' earlier Counsel since they have lost contact with their earlier Counsel Petitioner failed to file Compromise Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. as such 4. It IS submitted that accordingly, now the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have arrived at compromise, in view of the said compromise, the Respondent No.2 has no objection to allow the CRLRC.No.1948 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble High Court there by setting aside the Judgment dt. 18.05.2009 passed in CC.No.329 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Gooty Judgment dt. 13.10.2010 passed in CRLA.No.71 of 2009 Additional Sessions Judge; Gooty, a such this Compromise Memo for the kind perusal of the Flon’ble Court. as confirmed in on the file of VI U Petitioners/Appellants and mentioned above ecordina compromise, what is stated In the circumstances No.2 filed Petition for r Respondent the Compromise Respondent No.2 have entered in to comprora.se ithout undue influence. Hence this .lOint Memo. and and correct, Petitioners their free will Petition are true in on vv Amaravati Date; 16.06.2025 'f Counsel fc^^'he Petitioners ■■ 0 a \ h Counsel fo^^^eSpondent No.2/Compiainant Amaravati Date: 16.06.2O2