IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 395 of 2012 WITH
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 11292 of 2012 IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 395 of 2012
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 3 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO Whether this case involves a substantial question 4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= JASWANTLAL BABULAL SONI - Applicant(s) Versus BALDEVBHAI MANGABHAI VALA & 1 - Respondent(s) =========================================================
Appearance :
MR KAMAL SOJITRA FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1, Respondent No.1 has appeared as Party-in-Person, MS CHETNA SHAH ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 2, =========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 03/10/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. The respondent No.1 – original complainant named Baldevbhai Mangabhai Vala, who is appearing as Party-in- Person, waives the service of notice of rule and Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – State.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the respondent No.1 who is personally present, and as it is reported that parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner has paid the amount agreed to the respondent No.1 and the petitioner prays for compounding the offence for which he has been convicted and as the respondent No.1 has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence, present Criminal Revision Application and Criminal Misc.Application are taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present Criminal Revision Application No.395 of 2012, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner – original accused to quash and set aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1331 of 2008 (new) [Old Criminal Case No. 2749 of 2001] dtd.25/11/2009 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2009 dtd.17/12/2011, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
4. Criminal Misc.Application No.11292 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application to suspend the conviction and sentence in connection with the aforesaid judgement and orders and to release him on bail.
5. Today when both these matters are taken up for final hearing, Mr.Kamal Sojitra, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original accused and the respondent No.1 – original complainant have settled the dispute amicably and in fact the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent No.1 which the respondent No.1 has accepted towards his full and final claim against the cheque in question, which has been dishonoured. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioner has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.22,500/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner is required to deposit pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Versus Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010)5 SCC 663, and so as to enable the petitioner herein – original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
6. The respondent No.1 – original complainant, who is personally present in the court has stated at the bar that he has received a total sum of Rs.75,000 from the petitioner - original accused towards his full and final claim against the cheque in question which has been dishonoured and there shall not be any claim of the respondent No.1 against the petitioner - original accused against the cheque in question which has been dishonoured and he has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused, the respondent No.1 – original complainant, who has appeared as party in person, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considering the subsequent development and settlement between the petitioner - original accused and the respondent No.1 – original complainant and considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.75,000 to the respondent No.1 towards full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under the cheque in question which has been dishonoured and the petitioner has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.22,500/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitioner is required to deposit pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and as the respondent No.1 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence, petitioner is hereby permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, both the impugned judgement and orders of conviction and sentence, more particularly, the judgement and order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1331 of 2008 (new) [Old Criminal Case No. 2749 of 2001] dtd.25/11/2009 as well as the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2009 dtd.17/12/2011, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, if the petitioner herein - original accused is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. In view of disposal of the main Criminal Revision Application, no order in the Criminal Misc.Application 11292 of 2012 and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik