Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/589/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 589 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.D.
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 ?
=========================================================
PADMINIBEN
HITENDRABHAI PANCHAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUNIL M AGRAWAL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR IM PANDYA ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH
Date
: 04/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
RULE.
Mr. Pandya, learned APP waives the service of rule on behalf of
respondents.
1. By
way of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and order of the learned Additional Principal
Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.2008
passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008.
2. Mr.
Agrawal, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has already deposited the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.19,330/-
and amount of compensation i.e Rs.5,670/- before the trial Court on
10.01.2001 and 18.03.2008, respectively. Hence, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the appellate Court deserves to be quashed and
set aside. In support of his say, Mr. Agrawal has produced
photocopies of the receipts dated 10.01.2001 and 18.03.2008 issued by
the trial Court which are ordered to be taken on record.
3. Heard
learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on
record. The applicant, herein, had issued a cheque bearing No.475983
drawn on Dena Bank dated 22.12.1998 for an amount of Rs.19,330/-
towards the goods purchased by her from the original
complainant-respondent No.2, herein. However, the said cheque was
dishonoured by the Bank. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint
being Criminal Case No.494 of 1999 against the applicant for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad (for short
‘trial Court). During the pendency of proceedings before the trial
Court, the applicant deposited the amount of cheque in the trial
Court on 10.01.2001. In view of the above, at the end of the trial,
the trial Court took lenient view and sentenced the applicant to
undergo simple imprisonment of Till Rising Court and to pay
Rs.25,000/- and in case of default to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of three days for the aforesaid offence.
4. The
applicant, thereafter, preffered appeal against the judgment and
order of the trial Court being Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008 before
the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Sessions
Court No.2, Ahmedabad(for short ‘appellate Court). The appellate
Court after hearing all the parties, rejected the appeal of the
applicant and issued non-bailable warrant against her and also
directed her to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Court as
well as to pay the amount in question within the stipulated time as
directed by the trial Court. However, while passing the impugned
judgment and order the appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact
that the applicant had already deposited the amount of cheque i.e.
Rs.19,330/- as well as amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,670/- before
the trial Court. The appellate court also overlooked the fact that
the appellant had already undergone simple imprisonment of one day of
Till Rising Court as imposed by the trial Court. I am, therefore, of
the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court
is required to be modified.
5. In
the result, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order of
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions
Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of
2008 is partly modified. The order of the appellate Court issuing
non-bailable warrant against the applicant to suffer the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the trail Court as well as to pay the amount
of compensation is quashed and set aside. Rest of judgment and
order of the appellate Court stands confirmed. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.
(M.D.
Shah,J.)
Umesh/
Top