APHC010125492009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 578 OF 2009 Between: 1. V.CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, Koteswara Rao EmpGutur District ...Petitioner AND 1. EDARA VENKATESWARA RAO ANOTHER, S/o Subba Rao 1-5-18 Morrispeta,Tenali Guntur District 2. State of A P, rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P Hyderabad ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: CH RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents:A V V S N MURTHY The Court made the following order: ORDER: Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment dated 30.03.2009 in Crl.A.No.175 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming judgment and sentence passed by learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, dated 26.03.2008 in C.C.No.421 of 2006, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The said order of conviction and sentence was carried in appeal, but learned appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming judgment and sentence recorded by learned trial court. Hence, this criminal revision case. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 30.08.2004 by executing a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same. Subsequently, on demand, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.167102 dated 31.08.2006 in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the said debt. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his banker, but the same was returned unpaid with an endorsement that the account was closed. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 13.09.2006, demanding payment of the cheque amount. However, the accused neither sent any reply nor paid the amount covered by the cheque. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.During the trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to pay the entire cheque amount and wants to compound the matter. On considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court issued a direction to the State to submit the status report of the 1strespondent/complainant, vide order dated 27.07.2026. 4. Heard Sri Ch. RavindraBabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. Though learned counsel for the 1st respondent appeared before this Court on several occasions, he stated that he had no contact with his client. In this situation, it appears that though the petitioner agreed to settle the matter, due to the absence of the 1strespondent/complainant, the said compromise could not be effected. 6. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court inSanjabijTari v. Kishore S. Borcar&Anr.,(2025 INSC 1158), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out the rule and formula for compromising cases under Section 138 of NI Act at different stages. The guidelines mentioned at paras 37 and 38 reads as under: “37. It is pertinent to mention that this Court framed guidelines for compounding offences under the NI Act nearly fifteen years back in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). The relevant portion of the said Judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit. (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. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. xxx xxxxxx 24. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the abovequoted Guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act. 25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. 26. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to the subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum.” 38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view that it is time to „revisit and tweak the guidelines‟. Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines of compounding are modified as under:- (a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused. (b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque amount.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that at the stage of revision before the High Court, when the petitioner comes forward to compromise the matter, the entire cheque amount along with 10% of the amount has to be paid to the de-facto complainant. 8. Complainant is absent before this Court. Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compoundable under Section 147 of NI Act. For compounding the offence consent of victim is required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S.Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd and others has decided this issue as follows: “17. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that we held that the question whether the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded invoking the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, without consent of the complainant concerned, is no longer res integra. In short, the position is „that an offence under Section 138, N.I.Act, could be compounded under Section 147 thereof, only with the consent of the complainant concerned‟. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein despite the absence of the consent of the appellant-complainant compounded the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, on the ground that the appellant was equitably compensated, could not be sustained.” 9. Since, consent of complainant is mandatory for compounding offence under Section 138 of NI Act, in this case, offence cannot be compounded.However, considering long pendency of this matter it would be justified to dispose of the present Criminal Revision Case by confirming conviction of petitioner in view of order of the learned trial court under Section 138 of NI Act but converting substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year to fine which shall be treated as compensation to victim in tune of entire cheque amount together with 10% of the amount, over and above fine amount already ordered. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire cheque amount of Rs.50,000/- and 10% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.5,000/-, totaling Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) before learned trial court within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:28.09.2026 JLSR 162 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:578 of 2009 28.09.2026 JLSR