- (1.) Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 9751 of 2014) Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against order dated 23rd July, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Case No. 2210 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the criminal revision application filed by the Appellant against judgment dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Krishna at Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2001.
(2.) The aforesaid case was instituted at the instance of Complainant Respondent - M/s. Reco Agrotech Ltd. Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against Appellant alleging that the complainant is carrying on business in pesticides, Micro-Fertilizers and growth promoters etc. with wide marketing network and having its regional office at Vijayawada. The accused who is also carrying on business of pesticides and fertilizers etc. purchased goods from the complainant from time to time on credit basis. Out of their transactions and as per katha on 30th August, 1999 a sum of Rs. 3,07,342/- was due from the Appellant towards principal amount and he issued a cheque bearing No. 007277 dated 7th September, 1999 for Rs. 3,07,342/- for the aforesaid sum drawn on Union Bank of India, Palakol Branch in favour of the complainant and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds". In spite of the notice to the Appellant, the amount was not paid. The trial court held the Appellant guilty and convicted him and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Court and the Re-visional Court.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the meantime, the Appellant compromised the matter with the Complainant - Respondents. Memorandum of compromise and understanding arrived at between the complainant and the Accused-Appellant has been filed and annexed as Annexure P-6. It is stated that the said memorandum of compromise was also filed before the High Court but in spite of the same no relief was granted to the Appellant. Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant-Respondent also accepts that the parties have compromised the matter.;