JUDGMENT 1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 14/3/2011 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dtd. 25/3/2009 in C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam, for the offence under Sec. 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act"), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 19/4/2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1390 of 2011. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On 15/7/2004, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts from the complainant by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. But, he did not repay the same. ii). On receipt of notice, dtd. 25/11/2004 from the complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.006397 for Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on 6/12/2004 and the same was presented in Syndicate Bank, Dabagardens Branch, Visakhapatnam, but it was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement that 'payment stopped by drawer'. iii). On that, complainant got issued a legal notice dtd. 27/12/2004, the same was received by the accused on 28/12/2004 and kept quiet. Hence, the complaint. 4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam and after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay compensation under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C to the complainant to a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh only), which is equivalent to the impugned Ex.P.1 cheque amount, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months. 5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.64 of 2009, before the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dtd. 14/3/2011, by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. 5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.64 of 2009, before the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dtd. 14/3/2011, by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Now, pending the revision case, Sri P.Gnanateja, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri M.Lalith Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V.O.Raja Veer, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner brought a demand draft, vide D.D.No.374203 dtd. 26/2/2024, for Rs.1, 00, 000.00, drawn in the name of 1st respondent/Smt.Sabbavarapu Mahalakshmi, W/o.Gnaneswara Rao, which is the cheque amount and ordered as compensation to the complainant by the trial Court in C.C.No.671 of 2006. 8. The said demand draft was received by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and he reported no objection to consider the present revision. 9. Now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court reported in Laxminivas Agarwal v. Andhra Semi-Conductors Pvt.Ltd., (2006) 1 ALD Crl.300 (A.P.). as well judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 . wherein at paragraph Nos.19 and 28 held as follows: 19. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyze and re-interpret the evidence on record. 28. In R.Vijayan vs. Baby and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 260 . this Court observed that the object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive. It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason of dishonour of cheque and for enforcement of the civil liability for realization of the cheque amount, thereby obviating the need for the creditor to move two different forums for relief. It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability by reason of dishonour of cheque and for enforcement of the civil liability for realization of the cheque amount, thereby obviating the need for the creditor to move two different forums for relief. This Court expressed its anguish that some Magistrates went by the traditional view, that the criminal proceedings were for imposing punishment and did not exercise discretion to direct payment of compensation, causing considerable difficulty to the complainant, as invariably the limitation for filing civil cases would expire by the time the criminal case was decided". 10. It is also relevant make note of another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta, AIR 2017 SC 4594 . wherein at paragraph No.18 held as follows: "18. From the above discussion following aspects emerge: i) Offence under Sec. 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Sec. 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Sec. 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect. ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act normally has to be summary. iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act normally has to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Sec. 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Sec. 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Sec. 431 Cr.P.C. With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases. v) Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Sec. 264 Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Sec. 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Sec. 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances." 11. Considering the above authoritative pronouncements, to meet the ends of justice and since the entire amount under Ex.P.1 cheque in question was realized, this Court is inclined to consider the present revision by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial Court. 12. In the result, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dtd. 25/3/2009 in C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam, as confirmed in the judgment, dtd. 12. In the result, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dtd. 25/3/2009 in C.C.No.671 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam, as confirmed in the judgment, dtd. 14/3/2011 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Thereby, the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence under Sec. 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.