APHC010418592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY IA No.2 of 2024 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.951 OF 2024 Between:

Chandana Ratna Prasad Rao ...PETITIONER AND Ala Srinivasa Rao and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PITTALA SRINIVASA RAO

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

Common Order:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 15.07.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2023 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada, in CC No.147 of 2020, vide judgment dated 15.09.2023.

2. A private complaint has been filed as against the revision petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’). By judgment dated 15.09.2023, the learned III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada, found the revision petitioner herein guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, accordingly convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was ordered to pay to the complainant towards compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be remitted to the Government. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2023 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The said Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court, by judgment dated 15.07.2024, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate in CC No.147 of 2020. Against the said judgment, the petitioner/accused filed the present Revision Case.

3. Pending the Revision Case, both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed IA No.2 of 2024 along with joint memo seeking to permit them to compound the offence and to record the compromise.

4. Today, when the case is called, both the revision petitioner and 1^st respondent/complainant are present before this Court. Both the parties are identified by their respective counsel in the open Court. This Court questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise and he has categorically stated to the extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner/accused and he received the settled amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the revision petitioner herein towards full and final settlement. He further stated that he is not interested to prosecute the case and he has no objection to acquit the accused of the said offence.

5. Therefore, as the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offence in terms of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner, who is the accused in the judgment dated 15.09.2023 in C.C.No.147 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada, which in turn was confirmed in the judgment dated 15.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2023 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The revision petitioner, who is accused, is acquitted of the said offence in terms of Section

359(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. Accordingly, IA No.2 of 2024 in/and