Date : 06/09/2012 1. Rule. Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Karansinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, authorised officer and owner of respondent No.2 – original complainant – Power Finance Service who has appeared as Party-in-person, waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.
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 as it is reported that parties have settled the dispute amicably and the entire cheque amount has been paid by the petitioner herein - original accused to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting parties pray for compounding the offence, present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Present Criminal 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 judgement and order of conviction and sentence dtd.3/7/2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1329 of 2008 [(Old Case No.1655 of 2006) (341 of 2006) by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad has convicted the petitioner - original accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the judgement and order dtd.25/11/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2010, 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. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.Sindhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused and Mr.Karansinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, authorised officer and owner of respondent No.2 – original complainant – Power Finance Service, who is personally present in the court as Party- in-person, have stated at the bar that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and entered into Settlement Agreement dtd.6/9/2012 under which the petitioner herein – original accused has paid cheque amount to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant. The same is confirmed by the respondent No.2 who is personally present in the Court.
5. Mr.Sindhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has placed on record copy of the Settlement Agreement dtd.6/9/2012, which is directed to be taken on record.
6. Mr.Sindhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner herein – original accused has already deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1500/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner - original accused is required to deposit as per 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.
7. Mr.Karansinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, authorised officer and owner of respondent No.2 – original complainant – Power Finance Service, who is personally present in the Court, has stated at the bar that he has no objection if the petitioner herein – original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and Mr.Karansinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, authorised officer and owner of respondent No.2 – original complainant – Power Finance Service, and considering the subsequent development and settlement between the respondent No.2 - original complainant and petitioner herein - original accused and considering the fact that the entire amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 under the cheque in question, has been paid by the petitioner – original accused to the respondent No.2 – original complainant and as the petitioner – original accused has deposited 15% of the cheque amount towards costs 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 considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the petitioner – original accused and respondent No.2 – original complainant, are hereby permitted to compound the offence committed by the petitioner – original accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and both the impugned judgement and orders, more particularly judgement and order of conviction and sentence dtd.3/7/2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1329 of 2008 [(Old Case No.1655 of 2006) (341 of 2006) as well as the judgement and order dtd.25/11/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2010, 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. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik.