1. RULE. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant.
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 it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, and the petitioner – original accused has already deposited principal amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque and the parties have requested to permit them to compound the offence, present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present Revision Application, 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 impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1124 of 2009 dtd.26/2/2010, in convicting the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2010 dtd.25/1/2012, by which the learned appellate court had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and order passed by the learned trial court.
4. Today when the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.Chauhan learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused has stated that the petitioner – original accused has already deposited the cheque amount of Rs.60,000/- with the learned appellate court and has also given a further sum of Rs.60,000/- to the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – original complainant by way of two Demand Drafts, to be paid to the original complainant towards interest on the principal amount from the date of issuance of the cheque and has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.9000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitioner is required to be deposited in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, so as to enable the petitioner – accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
5. Mr.Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – accused has also stated at the bar that in view of the above, respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
6. Mr.Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has stated at the bar that on permitting the respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000/-, which the petitioner has deposited with the learned appellate court and as the complainant has received further sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the interest on the cheque amount, the original complainant has no objection if the petitioner – accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
7. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned APP has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
9. It is reported that the petitioner – accused has deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- the learned appellate court in appeal towards the principal cheque amount which has been dishonoured and has also paid a further sum of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.2 – original complainant by way of two Demand Drafts each of Rs.30,000/-, drawn in favour of the respondent No.2, towards interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque till date and has also deposited 15% amount of the cheque in question i.e. Rs.9,000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Considering the aforesaid taken by the respective parties and considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently, present Revision Application is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1124 of 2009 dtd.26/2/2010 as well as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2010 dtd.25/1/2012, are hereby quashed and set aside. If the petitioner – original accused is in jail he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
It is reported that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- before the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2010 towards cheque in question, which the respondent No.2 – original complainant is permitted to withdraw AND the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant by Account Payee Cheque, on proper verification and identification at the earliest but not later than two weeks from the date of the production of the copy of the present judgement and order.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik