1. Rule. Ms.C.M.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Siddharth Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of 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 the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner herein - original accused has already paid cheque amount to the respondent No.2 herein - original complainant and considering the request made by Mr.M.M.Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein for permitting the petitioner to compound the offence, the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The present Criminal Revision Application u/s.397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 learned Trial Court i.e. learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan dated 08/04/2010 passed in Criminal Case No.1220 of 2006, by which, learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioner herein for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as impugned judgement and order passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan dated 30/09/2011 passed in Criminal Misc.Appeal No.13 of 2010, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal confirming the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court.
4. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.M.M.Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein -
original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner herein - original accused has already paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- (against cheque amount of Rs.30,000/-) to respondent No.2 herein- original complainant. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioner herein has brought Demand Draft of Rs.4,500/- (being 15% of the cheque amount) in the name of Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner is required to be deposited pursuant to the judgement and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu V/s. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010)5 SCC 663 and the same shall be deposited today itself. Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner herein - original accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted and consequently to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below.
5. Mr.Siddharath Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 herein - original complainant, under the instruction from respondent No.2 herein - original complainant, who is personally present in the Court, has stated at the bar that he has no objection, if the petitioner herein is permitted to compound the offence, for which he has been convicted.
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 herein have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner herein - original accused has already paid sum of Rs.60,000/- (against cheque amount of Rs.30,000/-) to the respondent No.2 herein -
original complainant as full and final settlement towards entire cheque amount and has also deposited Rs.4,500/- (being 15% of the cheque amount) with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority towards the costs, to be deposited as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and as respondent No.2 – original complainant has no objection if the petitioner herein – original accused is permitted to compound the offence, for which he has been convicted and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the petitioner herein – original accused is hereby permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court i.e. learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan dated 08/04/2010 in Criminal Case No.1220 of 2006 as well as impugned judgement and order passed by learned Appellate Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan dated 30/09/2011 in Criminal Misc.Appeal No.13 of 2010 are hereby quashed and set aside.
7. It is reported that the petitioner herein – original accused has already paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant by cash and, therefore, the petitioner herein may be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.60,000/-, which the petitioner has deposited with the Registry of this Court. Consequently, Registry is directed to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner herein by Account Payee Cheque, which the petitioner has deposited with the Registry of this Court.
It goes without saying that the amount of fine, which has been deposited by the petitioner herein pursuant to the judgement and order passed by learned Trial Court, shall not be returned and the same may be retained by the State Government. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti