Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/794/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 794 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KHANUBHAI
JANIBHAI VANZARA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
CHIRAG B PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr L R Pujari, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 24/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
revision has been preferred by the petitioner-original accused who
was convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act by judgment and order dated 30.12.2008
passed in Criminal Case No.722/2002 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Thasra and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/- in default, simple
imprisonment for one month. The said judgment and order was
challenged before the learned Sessions Judge by way of filing Appeal
No. 2 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2, Nadiad by judgment and order dated 22.12.2009.
Both these orders are challenged in this Revision.
RULE.
2. Original
complainant has also preferred Revision Application against the
judgment and orders being Criminal Revision Application No.527 of
2008.
3. It
is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr Chirag B
Patel that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
He has placed on record the settlement pursis which is ordered to be
taken on record. Mr Murali Devnani, learned Advocate appears on
behalf of the original complainant. It is submitted by him that the
matters are settled between the parties and as per the settlement
the full and final amount in question has been received by the
complainant and he has no grievance against the present accused.
4. This
court has gone through the consent terms produced by the petitioners.
The accused was present before the court. Signature of the
complainant and the accused were identified by the respective learned
advocates. When the matter is settled between the parties and when
there is no dispute regarding the amount in question between the
parties and full and final payment is also made, in light of the
amended section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in light of
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay
Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2007(0) GLHEL-SC
40168.
this Revision Application is required to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the
learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nadiad and of the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Thasra are quashed and set aside. The
revisionist is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. So far as the refund of fine paid by the
accused shall be refunded to him. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[M.D.
SHAH, J.]
msp
Top