APHC010641622009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1622/2009 Between: Charu Nagamunendra ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: 1. ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri L. J. Veera Reddy submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are present and respondent No.2 intends to compound the offence with the petitioner. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the 2 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), which is compoundable under Section 147 of “the Act”. 3. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, vide judgment dated 05.02.2009 in S.T.C.No.155 of 2008, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of “the Act” and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for four (4) months and ordered Rs.80,000/- towards compensation and out of that amount, Rs.75,000/- was directed to be paid to respondent No.2 herein and Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid to the State. 4. The learned appellate Court also, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, confirmed the same on 27.04.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already undergone four months of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 6. Now the point remains is the amount of Rs.80,000/- ordered towards compensation shall be payable by the petitioner and out of that amount, Rs.75,000/- shall be payable to respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a unemployee, aged about 52 years. The petitioner is suffering from heart 3 ailments and he underwent surgery to his brain. The petitioner was also operated on his heart. 8. Respondent No.2 is present. He served in the army. He graciously and generously submitted that the petitioner admitted his guilt and remorse. Therefore, he intends to pardon the petitioner. 9. Respondent No.2 submits that he does not want and claim Rs.75,000/- which was granted towards compensation to him from the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. 10. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and respondent No.2 intends to compromise with the petitioner with regard to imposition of compensation of Rs.80,000/-, the case can be disposed of as compromised. However, the conviction under Section 138 read with 142 of “the Act” shall be maintained. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of “the Act” and the order of granting compensation of Rs.80,000/-, out of the said amount, Rs.75,000/- to be payable to respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- to be payable to the State Government, is set aside in view of deplorable and pitiable financial and health condition of petitioner and magnanimity of respondent No.2. No order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.04.2025 AMD 5 123 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1622/2009 Date: 10.04.2025 AMD