1.0 Rule. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State and Shri Rupera, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and as it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the applicant who has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application through Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee prays for permitting him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted which is agreeable to respondent no.2 herein original complainant who is personally present in the Court (receipt of Rs.25000/ which the applicant is deposited), present application is taken up for final hearing.
2.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant original accused through Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.3449 of 2008 by which the learned trial Court has convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana dated 14.9.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2010, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the applicant herein confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
3.0 Today, when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Ms. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant has stated at the bar that applicantoriginal accused as well as respondent no.2original complainant have settled the dispute amicably and the applicantoriginal accused has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/ with the Registry of this Court against the total cheque amount of Rs.30,000/ and the respondent no.2 herein original complainant has agreed to accept the same towards full and final settlement of his claim against the applicant under the cheque in question which has been dishonoured. Therefore, she has requested to permit the applicant to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. She has also stated at the bar that as such the applicant is very poor person and in fact he was not even in a position to approach this Court by way of present Revision Application and therefore, he approached High Court Legal Aid Committee and through which the applicant has preferred present Revision Application and therefore, it is requested to dispense with the deposit of 15% of cheque amount which is required to be deposited in view of the decision Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663. Shri Rupera, learned advocate for the respondent no.2original complainant has stated at the bar that respondent no.2 has agreed to accept Rs.25000/ against the cheque amount of Rs.30,000/ as full and final settlement of his claim against the petitioner towards the cheque which has been dishonoured and permitting the complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.25000/, which the applicant is deposited with the Registry of this Court, he has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence, for which he has been convicted. So far as deposit of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority is concerned, he has left it to the Court.
4.0 Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order even dispensing with the deposit of 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which applicant is required to be deposited in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), considering the fact that even present revision application has been filed by the present applicant through Legal Aid Committee.
5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that now the parties have settled dispute amicably and the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.25000/ with the Registry of this Court against the cheque amount of Rs.30000/, which respondent no.2 herein original complainant has agreed to accept as full and final settlement of his claim against the applicant towards deposit of amount of cheque in question which has been dishonoured and that the applicant who has approached this Court through Legal Aid Committee has requested to permit the applicant to compound the offence and that respondent no.2 hereinoriginal complainant has no objections if the accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. Under the circumstances and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the applicant can be permitted to compound the offence. It is true that normally by permitting the applicant to compound the offence, accused is required to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, when the applicant is very poor person and has even approached this Court by way of present revision application through Legal Aid Committee, it appears to the Court that in the peculiar and facts and circumstances of the case and without citing the same as president the applicant can be permitted to compound the offence without depositing of 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority as on one hand he has been given legal assistance through Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee and on the other hand he will be required to pay 15% of the amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, which the applicant is not in a position to pay at all.
6.0 Under the circumstances, applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted for the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & JMFC, Mehsana passed in Criminal Case No.3449 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25000/ to the respondent no.2original complainant by way of account of payee cheque which applicant has deposited with the Registry of this Court pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court at the earliest. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. ) “kaushik”