Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

Writ Appeal No. 54 of 2005 arises out of an order passed by our learned brother Justice G.Raghuram on 29.12.2004 dismissing the interlocutory application, duly observing as under:

"The writ petition is filed, in substance, to declare the compromise entered into between the first and second petitioner on behalf of the third respondent as constituting a compounding of the offence, for which, the third respondent was convicted in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1997, under Section 147 of the Act.

Prima facie, as this Court has become functus officio in view of the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1997 and recording of the said conviction and sentence therein, no compounding of the offence under the provisions of the Act qua the provisions of Section 147 of the Act could be recorded by this Court. On this aspect, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to make further submissions at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

In the light of the prima facie view of this Court recorded hereinabove, no case is made out for grant of any interim order as sought herein. This application is accordingly dismissed."

Thereafter, when several criminal petitions have been moved by the accused in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), our learned brother Justice P. Swaroop Reddy has observed as under:

"Now the parties wanted to compound the case. But, as the Criminal Revisions are finally disposed of by this Court, prima facie I am of the view that these petitions for compounding cannot be entertained by this Court."

However, a Division Bench while entertaining Writ Appeal No. 54 of 2005 passed an interim order suspending the sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1997, dated 17.12.1998. In view of this order passed by the Division Bench entertaining Writ Appeal No. 54 of 2005, our learned Brother Justice P. Swaroop Reddy directed all the criminal petitions to be heard along with the said W A No. 54 of 2005 and thus all these cases are heard by us.

2. The crucial questions that require to be answered by us are:

(1) at what stage, an offence said to have been committed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') can be allowed or permitted to be compounded?

(2) Can any such application/petition be entertained even after the appeal/ revision has ended or not?

3. Heard Sri J.Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the appellant in the writ appeal, Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners in the criminal petitions and Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appointed as Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. N.I. Act is an Act intended to define and codify the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques. It has been amended on several occasions. But, however, the significant amendment for the present purposes is the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, Amending Act 66 of 1988, through which Chapter XVII has been introduced into the N.I. Act. The amending provisions have been brought into force with effect from 1.4.1989. Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act begins with Section 138, recognising the act of dishonour of a cheque drawn by any person for payment of any amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other enforceable liability, when returned unpaid by the banker, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account, to have committed an offence, and the same may be punished with imprisonment, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Initially, the term of imprisonment was contemplated to be period of one year which was subsequently substituted by the ter