IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 412 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 3 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO Whether this case involves a substantial question 4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= SANJAY LABHSHANKAR JOSHI - Applicant(s) Versus JAGDISHBHAI JAYCHANDBHAI THAKKAR & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR SP KOTIA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RJ GOSWAMI for Respondent(s) : 1, MS CHETNA SHAH ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 31/08/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Mr.R.J. Goswami, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Ms. Chetna Ahah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2-State.
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 the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they have requested to compound the offence, the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The 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 impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No.12987 of 2007 dtd.31/12/2011 convicting the petitioner - original 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 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2012 dtd.6/7/2012, by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant – original accused confirming the Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for hearing, Mr.Sunil Kotia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein - original accused has stated at the bar that the petitioner herein – original accused as well as the respondent No.1 – original complainant has settled the dispute amicably and that the petitioner herein has already paid the cheque amount to the original complainant. Therefore, it is requested to permit the petitioner to compound the offence for which he is convicted.
5. Mr.Sunil Kotia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused has further submitted that the respondent No.1 herein - original complainant has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence for which he is convicted.
6. Mr.Sunil Kotia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein – original accused has further submitted that the petitioner herein has already deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority so as to enable the petitioner herein to compound the offence for which he is convicted.
7. Mr.R.J. Goswami, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has placed on record affidavit affirmed by the respondent No.1 - original complainant submitting that he has received cheque amount and has no objection if the petitioner herein – original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he is convicted.
8. In view of the above and considering 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, when the parties have settled the dispute amicable and the respondent No.1 herein – original complainant has received the entire amount of the cheque in question and has no objection if the petitioner herein – original accused is permitted to compound the offence and as the petitioner herein has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, it appears that the petitioner can be permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Revision Application is allowed and the impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No.12987 of 2007 dtd.31/12/2011 as well as the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court - learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2012 dtd.6/7/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside by permitting the petitioner herein – original accused to compound the offence. The petitioner herein – original accused is ordered to be released immediately, if not required for any other offence and/or case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik