AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT
Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Compounding at revisional stage — Permissibility (Paras 3–7)
Issue: Whether offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded during pendency of criminal revision against conviction.
Facts: Petitioner convicted in C.C.No.254 of 2004 for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, with conviction confirmed in appeal, filed applications during pendency of Criminal Revision Case seeking permission to compound offence on basis of settlement reached with complainant-finance company.
Held: Since offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and parties voluntarily entered into compromise after settlement of dues, compounding was permitted even at revisional stage. (Paras 3–7)
Compromise — Voluntariness — Satisfaction of complainant — Effect (Para 4)
Issue: Whether compromise between parties was genuine and voluntary.
Facts: Managing Partner of complainant-financier personally appeared before Court and stated that entire amount was received, compromise application was signed voluntarily without coercion, and he had no objection for release of accused.
Held: Upon satisfaction regarding genuineness and voluntariness of compromise, Court accepted settlement between parties. (Para 4)
Compounding of offence — Effect on conviction and sentence — Acquittal of accused (Paras 6–7)
Issue: Consequence of compounding offence under Section 138 N.I. Act after confirmation of conviction in appeal.
Facts: Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed in Criminal Appeal were sought to be nullified on basis of compromise.
Held: Once offence was compounded, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court stood set aside, accused was acquitted, and sureties were discharged. (Paras 6–7)
