THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. Sayed Babalal H1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions
Case at a glance
Outcome
Acquitted
Hence, the Petitioners/Accused are acquitted under Section 320(8)
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Magistrate-IV, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.54 of 2018, dated 25.07.2018, as confirmed in…
Judgment
Cause title
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATI. ITS PUBLIC
2. KANDREGULA SHANTHI, W/O K.VENKATA RAO,AGED ABOUT 41 COLONY, R/O.D.NO.50-49-43/4TPT YEARS, SEETHAMMADHARA,VISAKHAPATNAM-530013. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. MUSUDI BABJI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. A V S LAXMI 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.257 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026 The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity the BNSS), by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (MU) No.412 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment dated
25.07.2018 passed in C.C.No.54 of 2018 by the learned Special Magistrate- IV, Visakhapatnam.
The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are present. I.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2026 are filed to record and permit the compromise the case between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, in unison, submit that the Petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to Respondent No.2 and that the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has now been paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 by way of D.D. No.722619 for Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Thus, the entire cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 acknowledges receipt of the said amount.
Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.257 of 2026 Dated 17.08.2026
Operative part
In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Magistrate-IV, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.54 of 2018, dated 25.07.2018, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal (MU) No.412 of 2018, dated 28.10.2025, by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, are hereby set aside. Hence, the Petitioners/Accused are acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner’s financial condition is precarious. The son of the Petitioner had been suffering from renal problems and had undergone dialysis for a considerable period, due to which the Petitioner incurred substantial expenditure and suffered financial hardship. Unfortunately, the Petitioner’s son subsequently passed away. Therefore, he prays that the Petitioners may be exempted from paying the 7.5% costs as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the Petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain 2 relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra and observed that in appropriate cases, matters
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Petitioners/Accused are acquitted under Section 320(8)
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 438, 442; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320(8); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Aug 2026. The bench was SESSIONS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.