1.00. RULE. Mr.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State, Mr.G.C. Ray, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant, in each of the Revision Applications. 2.00. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Revision Applications, and are between the same parties but with respect to different cheque, all these Revision Applications are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.
3.00. As it is reported that the common petitioner herein – original accused named Maheshbhai Bhagubhai Patel has deposited entire amount of the cheques in question in respective Revision Applications with the trial court / this Court, and the petitioner - accused has also deposited 15% of the cheques amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, so as to enable the petitioner - accused to compound the offences and the petitioner - accused is praying for compounding the offences for which he has been convicted, all these Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing today.
3.01. Criminal Revision Application No. 981 of 2005 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 402 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
3.02. Criminal Revision Application No. 982 of 2005 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 758 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
3.03. Criminal Revision Application No. 983 of 2005 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 762 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
3.04. Criminal Revision Application No. 984 of 2005 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 759 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2003 dtd.7/12/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
3.05. Criminal Revision Application No. 985 of 2005 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 757 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 by which the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2003 dtd.7/12/2005, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
4.00. Today when all these Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing, Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner in all these Revision Applications - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original accused had deposited the entire amount of the cheques in question i.e. Rs.2,26,000/- with the learned trial court and has also deposited Rs.4000/- with the Registry of this Court, in all Rs.2,30,000.
4.01. Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner in all these Revision Applications - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner - original accused has also deposited 15% of the total amount of the cheques in question 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 Vs. SAYED BABALAL H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, so as to enable the petitioner to compound the offences for which he has been convicted.
4.02. Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner in all these Revision Applications - original accused has stated at the bar that the respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offences for which he has been convicted, subject to permitting the respondent No.2 – original complainant to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner - accused with the learned trial court as well as Registry of this Court.
Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner - original accused to compound the offences for which he has been convicted.
5.00. Mr.G.C. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has stated at the bar under the instructions from the respondent No.2 – original complainant that on permitting the respondent No.2 – original complainant to withdraw the entire amount, deposited by the petitioner - original accused with the learned trial court as well as with the Registry of this Court (in all Rs.2,30,000/-), he has no objection if the petitioner - original accused is permitted to compound the offences for which he has been convicted.
6.00. Heard Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused and Mr.C.G. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant and Mr.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.
7.00. From the aforesaid it appears that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner in all these Revision Applications – original accused has deposited Rs.2,26,000/- with the learned trial court and has also deposited Rs.4000/- with the registry of this Court today and has also deposited 15% of the total cheques amount i.e. Rs.34,500/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority which the petitioner - accused is required to deposit pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU (supra) so as to enable the petitioner – accused to compound the offences for which he has been convicted, on permitting the respondent No.2 – original complainant – Sharadbhai Jivanbhai Chavda to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.2,30,000/-, the petitioner in all these Revision Applications - original accused can be permitted to compound the offences for which he has been convicted and is accordingly permitted to compound the offences for which he has been convicted in respective Criminal Cases. Consequently the judgement and orders impugned in all these Revision Applications, more particularity :-
[1] the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No.
402 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, impugned in the Criminal Revision Application No. 981 of 2005;
[2] the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 758 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, impugned in the Criminal Revision Application No. 982 of 2005
[3] the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 762 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 dtd.29/11/2005, impugned in the Criminal Revision Application No. 983 of 2005
[4] the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 759 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2003 dtd.7/12/2005, impugned in Criminal Revision Application No. 984 of 2005
[5] the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court - learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chikhli in Criminal Case No. 757 of 2000 dtd.26/6/2003 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge and 2nd FTC, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2003 dtd.7/12/2005, impugned in Criminal Revision Application No. 985 of 2005, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, if the petitioner herein – original accused is in jail, he is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
It is reported that against petitioner - original accused has deposited Rs.2,26,000/- with the learned trial court and has deposited Rs.4,000/- with the Registry of this Court today. The respondent No.2 herein – original complainant - Sharadbhai Jivanbhai Chavda to withdraw the aforesaid amounts and the learned trial court is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,01,000/- which the petitioner herein – original accused has deposited in respective Criminal Cases, to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant - Sharadbhai Jivanbhai Chavda by Account Payee Cheque on proper verification and identification and Registry of this Court is also directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (which is reported to have been deposited today) to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant - Sharadbhai Jivanbhai Chavda by Account Payee Cheque on proper verification and identification, at the earliest but not later than two weeks from today on production of certified copy of this judgement and order..
Rule is made absolute accordingly in each of the Revision Applications Direct Service is permitted.
rafik.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]