AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Shah, J.—RULE. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mahendra K. Patel, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent No. 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.
The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant original accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25/10/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer (3rd Fast Track Court), Camp at Visnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 117/2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 30/7/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadnagar in Criminal Case No. 72 of 2004, by which the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Today, when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties have stated at the bar that the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,64,567/-, to the Respondent No. 2 society - original complainant, which is the cheque amount, with the Registry of this Court. It is further submitted at the bar that the applicant has also further paid a sum of Rs. 1,53,000=00 to the Respondent No. 2 - original complainant society.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has further stated at the bar that a sum of Rs. 24,686=00 is deposited by the applicant with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority being 15% of the cost of the cheque amount, which is required to be deposited as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
In view of the above, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly Mr. Mahendra Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 - original complainant has stated at the bar that Respondent No. 2 - original complainant has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he his convicted i.e. u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the impugned judgment and order passed by both the courts below are quashed and set aside. He has produced on record Resolution passed by the original complainant - Respondent No. 2 society dtd.12/12/2010, by which it is resolved that on aforesaid payment, Respondent No. 2 - original complainant society has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence and the the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the courts below are quashed and set aside.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the parties have settled the dispute and the amount due and payable under the cheque in question inclusive of the interest on the cheque amount is deposited/paid by the applicant and the applicant has also deposited a sum of Rs. 24,686=00 towards cost so as to enable the applicant / parties and permit the applicant to compound the offence and considering the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU (supra), the applicant is permitted to compound the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for which he has been punished and convicted, present Criminal Revision Application is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 25/10/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer (3rd Fast Track Court), Camp at Visnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 117/2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 30/7/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadnagar in Criminal Case No. 72 of 2004 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the applicant - original accused is ordered to be set as liberty forthwith, if he is in jail and if not required in any other case.
The Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is hereby permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,64,567=00 (Rupees One Lac Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Seven only) which is deposited by the applicant with the registry of this Court and registry is directed to pay the said amount to the Respondent No. 2 by Account Payee Cheque, on proper verification.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Direct Service is Permitted.