APHC010685052012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 916/2012 Between: 1. BALLA FUTURE TRADING CONSTULTANCY,, VISAKHAPATNAM REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BALLA SRINIVAS, T.S.R.COMPLEX, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. BALLA SRINIVAS,, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF BALLA FUTURE TRADING CONSTULTANCY. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD, 2. A VENKATESWARLU, S/O SREE RAMULU, R/O RAJAJI STREET, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto set-aside the order dt.14-6-2012 passed in Crl.MP.SR.No.660 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.292 of 2010 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada and permit the petitioners for compounding the offence by referring to Lok Adalat and acquit the accused. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 1438 OF 2012 2 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 stay of all further proceedings in Crl.A.No.292 of 2010 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K SRINIVASA REDDY The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the petitioners/accused 1 & 2 assailing the order dated 14.06.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.(S.R.) No.660 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District (for short, „1st Appellate Court‟), whereby the 1st Appellate Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioners/appellants 1 and 2 under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, „N.I. Act‟) seeking to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for compounding the offence. 2. 2. The case of the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 is that the 2nd respondent herein, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act, which was subsequently numbered as C.C.No.1283 of 2008 before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada (for short, „the trial Court‟). 3. Upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, vide its Judgment, dated 27.08.2010 in C.C.No.1283 of 2008 and convicted A.1/Firm to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in 3 default, A.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months; further convicting the A.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for six (06) months and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.292 of 2010 before the 1st Appellate Court. 5. During the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 147 of N.I. Act, seeking to compound the offence by referring the matter to the Lok Adalat and requesting the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 2. After hearing the petition, the 1st Appellate Court rejected the petition vide order dated 14.06.2012 in Crl.M.P.(S.R.) No.660 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.292 of 2010. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid rejection order, the petitioners have filed the present revision. 6. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are able to establish the illegality and irregularity in the order passed by the 1st Appellate Court in rejecting the reference of the matter to Lok Adalat for compounding of the offence? P O I N T: 7. Learned counsel for Petitioners/A1 and A2 submits that the First Appellate Court should have allowed the petition for compounding the offence and acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He argues the petitioners were willing to pay the cheque amount, so the Section 147 petition should have been granted. He further contends that the First Appellate Court erred by rejecting the petition without reasons and failed to consider the Supreme Court‟s guidelines on compounding offences. 4 8. It is settled law as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court”. 9. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam2, held that: 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure." 10. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus: "8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings." 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 5 11. The record shows that Petitioners/A1 and A2 filed a petition under Section 147 of the N.I.Act before the First Appellate Court, seeking compounding of the offence. The First Appellate Court, in its order dated 14.06.2012 in Crl.M.P. (S.R.) No.660 of 2012, noted as follows: “xxx Notice is given to R.1, R.2 counsel. R.1 counsel endorsed the matter was not settled and R.2 counsel endorsed that he may be heard. To settle the matter before the Lok Adalat, both parties have to give consent and even for compounding petition has to be filed by complainant. Hence, your honour may be pleased to reject this application. Heard. Rejected.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even without consent from one party, the matter can be referred to Lok Adalat for compounding. In support of his contention, he placed a copy from the website of Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Amaravati, wherein it is mentioned that: “LOK ADALAT MECHANISM: xxx In respect of cases pending before Courts, such cases can be referred to Lok Adalat if the parties thereof agree or one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court or the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat.” From the above, it is clear that the Court has discretion to refer the matter to Lok Adalat for compounding the offence. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Hon‟ble Apex Court‟s judgment in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta4, wherein it made the following observations: “18.1. Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on the accused in view of presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same 4 2018(1) SCC 560 6 has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under CrPC but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 CrPC will apply and the court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. 18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. 18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Balla Future Trading Consultancy and Om Gayatri Jewellers 5 , which follows the Supreme Court‟s observations. The main argument is that, in accordance with these guidelines, the 1st Appellate Court must refer the matter for compounding the offence. 15. The judgment in M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra) was delivered on 05.10.2017, whereas the impugned order dates back to 14.06.2012. Therefore, the 1st Appellate Court cannot be faulted for not following this judgment or related composite High Court rulings, which were not yet available at the time. Further, as observed by the Supreme Court in M/s.Meters, the court‟s discretion to close proceedings and discharge the accused or to refer the matter for compounding depends on the satisfaction that the complainant has been duly compensated. In the present case, the petitioners have only sought a referral to Lok Adalat without demonstrating any settlement or compensation to the complainant. Since the 1st Appellate Court exercised its discretion in declining the referral, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed. 5 (Order dated 19.04.2018, Criminal Petition No. 11701 of 2011) 7 16. However, the petitioners may place the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court before the 1st Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.292 of 2010 to pursue his remedies. 17. After considering the material on record, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Judge and therefore declines to interfere. 18. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 05.08.2025 MS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 916 of 2012 Date: 05.08.2025 MS