Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/63120/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 631 of
2008
=========================================================
JITENDRA
AMRUTLAL SHAH PROPRIETOR- TAMANNA SELECTION - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR IM PANDYA ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NAURIN A SAIYED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 16/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Mr. Pandya, learned APP waives the service of rule on behalf of
respondent No.1-State and Mr. Saiyed on behalf of respondent No.2.
1. By
way of this revision, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside
the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Case No.1004 of 2005 dated 13.09.2007 as
well as the judgment and order of the learned Additional City
Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2007
dated 31.07.2008.
2. The
brief facts of the case are that the original
complainant-Jogindersinh R. Chauhan-respondent No.2, herein, had
filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. At the end of the trial, the
applicant was convicted by the trial Court vide its judgment and
order dated 13.09.2007 and was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in case of default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
3. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of
the trial Court, the applicant preferred appeal before the appellate
Court. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties, confirmed
the judgment and order of the trial Court. Hence, the present
revision.
4. Heard,
Mr. Dagli, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Pandya, learned
APP on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Saiyed, learned
Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2. The original
complainant-Jogindersinh R. Chauhan-respondent No.2 is personally
present before this Court and he has filed an affidavit which is
ordered to be taken on record. In the said affidavit, respondent No.2
has stated that the dispute between both the parties has been
amicably settled outside the Court and he has received the entire
amount of the cheque along with expenses, and hence, he has requested
the Court to accept the compromise arrived at by them and permit the
applicant to compound the offence. One Mr. Naurin Saiyed, learned
Advocate is also present before this Court. Mr. Saiyed has stated
that he knows the complainant and he identified the original
complainant-respondent No.2 and his signature as well.
5. In
view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed. The applicant
is permitted to compound the offence under Section 147 of the N.I.
Act. The judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Case No.1004 of 2005 dated
13.09.2007 as well as the judgment and order of the learned
Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Appeal
No.131 of 20907 dated 31.07.2008 are quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute. Mr. Naurin A. Saiyed will file his ‘Vakalatnama’
during the course of the day. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.
Shah,J.)
Umesh/
Top