1. 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 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1831 of 2010 [Old Case No.8498 of 2008] dtd.23/2/2011, 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 impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2011 dtd.7/4/2012, by which the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein – original accused confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
2. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr. Y.M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 – original complainant have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner herein – original accused has already deposited the entire cheque amount with the learned trial court.
3. Mr.Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – original complainant has stated at the bar and has confirmed that the petitioner herein has deposited the entire cheque amount with the learned trial court. He has also stated at the bar that on permitting the respondent No.2 to withdraw the amount which is deposited by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has no objection if the petitioner herein is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
4. Mr.Thakore, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner herein – original accused has already deposited 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.4106/- 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.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the subsequent development and settlement between the petitioner - original accused and the respondent No.2 – original complainant and considering the fact that the entire cheque amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 under the cheque in question has been reported to be deposited by the petitioner - original accused with the learned trial court, and as the petitioner herein – original accused has deposited 15% of the cheque amount towards the 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 is hereby permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and 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.10, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1831 of 2010 [Old Case No.8498 of 2008] dtd.23/2/2011 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2011 dtd.7/4/2012, 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.
The respondent No.2 herein – original complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount which the petitioner herein – original accused has reported to be deposited with the learned trial court towards the cheque amount, which shall be paid to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant, by Account Payee Cheque only on proper identification and verification at the earliest.
Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik