Appellate court upholds conviction under Section 138, emphasizes faith in banking operations. Amicable settlement reached.

The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Both parties reached an amicable settlement, with no objection to quashing the judgment. Despite the objection by the APP, the court, citing legal precedent, emphasized promoting faith in banking operations. Consequently, the court allowed the revision application, quashed the judgments, acquitted the applicant, permitted withdrawal of the deposited amount, and modified the compensation amount to Rs. 50,000 to be paid within four weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, settlement between parties, request for quashing of judgment, objection by APP, application of legal precedent, permission to withdraw deposited amount, modification of compensation amount.

Analysis:
The applicant challenged the judgment and order dated 22.8.2015 passed convicting them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. Respondent No.1 appeared before the court, identified himself, and filed an affidavit stating the amicable settlement between the parties. He expressed no objection to quashing the impugned judgments. The settlement was confirmed by both parties' advocates, requesting the court to dispose of the revision application by quashing the challenged judgments.

The respondent's affidavit detailed the settlement process, stating no ill will exists between the parties, and requested the quashing of the criminal case. The respondent declared no objection to the revision application being allowed in favor of the applicant. Both parties' advocates confirmed the amicable settlement, urging the court to dispose of the matter without adjudication on merits. However, the learned APP objected, arguing for upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented.

Citing the Supreme Court's observations in a relevant case, the court emphasized the importance of promoting faith in banking operations and credibility in transactions involving negotiable instruments. Applying this precedent to the case at hand, the court found it appropriate to allow the revision application and permit the parties to compound the offense. Considering the settled dispute and submissions from both sides, the court concluded that the revision application should be allowed, quashing the impugned judgments.

As a result, the court allowed the revision application, quashing the judgments passed by the lower courts. The applicant was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant, subject to verification by the trial court. Additionally, the compensation amount was modified, with the applicant directed to pay Rs. 50,000 within four weeks for the respondent to withdraw before the trial court.

---