APHC010400532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY IA NOs.1 OF 2025 AND 2 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 901/2024 Between: M. Lakshminarayana Gupta, ...PETITIONER A N D State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 C O M M O N O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 21.08.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, confirming the Judgment, dated 01.12.2022, passed in Calendar Case No.1980 of 2017 by the learned II Special Magistrate, Ananthapuram. 2. A complaint vide C.C.No.1980 of 2017 was filed by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner herein/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the NI Act’). After full-fledged trial, vide Judgment, dated 01.12.2022, learned II Special Magistrate, Ananthapuram, convicted the petitioner/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, in terms of Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of five (05) months. The trial Court further ordered that on payment of fine amount, the respondent No.2/complainant is entitled to 3 recover/withdraw a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- towards compensation as per Section 357 (1) CrPC. 3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, petitioner/accused preferred the appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram. On reappreciation of entire evidence brought on record, the learned Appellate Judge, vide Judgment, dated 21.08.2024, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. On 11.02.2025, when the matter was taken up, petitioner herein/accused and respondent No.2/complainant are present before this Court. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent herein/complainant identified both parties in the open Court. This Court questioned 2nd respondent herein/complainant with regard to compromise and he categorically stated to that extent that he voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein/ accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. I.A.Nos.1 of 2025 and 2 of 2025 are filed seeking permission to compound the case and to record the compromise arrived at, between the parties. This Court is 4 satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. 5. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offence, there is no hindrance to record the same. Accordingly, Judgment, dated 21.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2022 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram confirming the Judgment, dated 01.12.2022, passed in Calendar Case No.1980 of 2017 by the learned II Special Magistrate, Ananthapuram, is set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner/ accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 of 2025, 2 of 2025 and Criminal Revision Case No.901 of 2024 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ______ _________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 11th February, 2025. DNB