1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  No(s). 1290 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No(s).11006 OF 2018)

M/S GANGA BHAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS                    Appellant(s) (Prop.Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.                 Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J. :

(1) Leave granted.

(2) Being aggrieved by the conviction under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence of one year imposed

upon Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish, the appellant-M/s. Ganga

Bhavani Constructions has preferred this appeal.

(3) The appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Construtions has borrowed

a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from the second

respondent-Narapureddy  Sanyasi  Rao  on  04.04.2007.   The

appellant executed a promissory note in favour of respondent

no.2.  Additionally, the appellant also issued a cheque on

17.04.2008.  Upon  presentation of the same, the said cheque

was returned with endorsement “payment stopped by drawer” on

18.04.2008.  In the complaint filed by the second respondent-

Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the

Trial  Court  vide  Judgment  dated  17.04.2012,  convicted  the

2

appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.  The

First  Appellate  Court  affirmed  the  conviction  and  also  the

sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant.  The High

Court  vide  impugned  judgment  dated  11.10.2018  dismissed  the

revision  petition  upholding  the  conviction  of  the  appellant

observing that the appellant had admitted his signature on the

cheque and  has failed to rebut the presumption under Section

138  of  the  N.I.  Act.   The  High  Court  while  affirming  the

conviction  has  reduced  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed

upon the appellant from two years to one year.  Being aggrieved

the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(4) Vide Order dated 02.01.2019, this Court has directed the

appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs)  before  the  Trial  Court  –  VIth  Additional  Judicial

Magistrate of first Class, Rajahmundry.  In compliance of the

said order dated 02.01.2019, the appellant has deposited a sum

of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) before the concerned Trial

Court on 15.02.2019.

(5)  Now today, the appellant-M/s. Ganga Bhavani Constructions

represented by its proprietor- Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish

is present in the Court in-person.  Mr. Chava Badri Nath Babu,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that

the appellant and second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao has

compromised the matter.  It is stated that Pursuant to the

Compromise Memo, the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao

has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs).  The

3

second  respondent-Narapureddy  Sanyasi  Rao  is  present  in  the

Court in-person and identified by his AADHAR card produced by

him.  They have today filed the Compromise Memo duly attested

by the Notary Public at Delhi which shall form part of the

record.  It is stated at the Bar that in pursuance of the said

Compromise Memo, respondent no.2-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao has

received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs).

(6) In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties,

the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 138 of

the N.I.Act and the sentence imposed upon him is set aside and

the appellant-Sri Reddy Satyanarayana @ Satish is acquitted of

the charge under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in terms of Section

320(8) of the Cr.P.C.

(7) Since the second respondent-Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao, who

is present in the Court in-person, has stated that he received

the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs)

pursuant to the Compromise, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs) deposited before the Trial Court shall be refunded

to the appellant.

(8) The appeal is accordingly allowed.

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 28, 2019.