Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3289/2011 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3289 of 2011
In
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 619 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. 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 ?
=========================================
NAROTTAMBHAI
KARSHANDAS NANDA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
KANDRAP H DHOLKIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR TUSHAR L SHETH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PREMAL RANCHH for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 17/03/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Leave
to amend the prayer clause by adding paragraph 12(AA).
2. RULE.
Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent no. 1 and Shri Premal Ranchh, learned advocate
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.
2-original complainant.
3. In
the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the
present application is taken up for final hearing today.
4. The
present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original
accused-convict for the following reliefs;
(A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to allow the Miscellaneous Criminal
Application and be further pleased to recall the order of this
Hon’ble Court dated 25/11/2010 passed in Criminal Revision
Application No. 619/2009 in view of the compromise arrived at between
the parties; and further be pleased to acquit the applicant-accused
by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 12/07/2005
passed in Criminal Case No. 581/2002 as well as the judgment and
order dated 30/06/2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005.
(AA) Your
Lordships may be pleased to grant permission of compounding of the
offence in view of the subsequent development of compromise arrived
at between the parties after the judgment is delivered in Criminal
Revision Application No. 619/2009 and thereby pleased to quash and
set aside the judgment and order dated 12/07/2005 passed in Criminal
Case No. 581/2002, judgment and order dated 30/06/2009 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005 as well as the judgment and order dated
25/11/2010 of this Hon’ble Court passed in Criminal Revision
Application No. 619/2009 and further be pleased to acquit the
applicant/accused;
5. Shri
Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant-original accused-convict has submitted that subsequent to
the order passed by this Court dated 25/11/2010 in Criminal Revision
Application No. 619/2009 confirming the orders passed by both the
Courts below convicting the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a
settlement arrived at between the applicant and respondent no. 2 by
which the applicant has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 75,000/-,
which is the cheque amount, and in fact the said amount is already
paid to respondent no. 2, and, therefore, it is requested to permit
the applicant to compound the offence and consequently to quash and
set aside the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court
confirmed by the learned Sessions Court as well as this Court. Shri
Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of KIRPALSINGH PRATAPSINGH Vs. SALVINDER KAUR
HARDISINGH LOBANA reported in 2004 (2) GLH 544. Relying
upon the said decision, it is submitted that even after dismissal of
Criminal Revision Application confirming the conviction by both the
Courts below, compounding of the offence is permissible, more
particularly, in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Shri
Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
has further submitted that he has brought the Demand Draft in the
name of Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for an amount of Rs.
10,000/-, 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. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 while
permitting the parties to compound the offence. He has submitted
that the Demand Draft shall be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority during the course of the day.
6. Shri
Premal Ranchh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.
2, under instructions from respondent no. 2, has stated at the bar
that respondent no. 2 has no objection in permitting the applicant to
compound the offence and quashing and setting aside the order of
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned
Session Court confirmed by this Court. He has also stated at the
bar, under instructions from respondent no. 2, that he has already
received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the applicant being the cheque
amount.
7. Shri
R.C. Kodekar, learned APP has requested to pass an appropriate order
considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case
recorded hereinabove.
8. In
view of the above and considering the fact that as the parties have
now settled the dispute amicably and the cheque amount is already
paid by the applicant to respondent no. 2 and the applicant has also
deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services
Authority to be deposited as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU (Supra) to be deposited
while permitting the applicant to compound the offence and
considering the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of KIRPALSINGH PRATAPSINGH (Supra) and as neither the
learned APP nor the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 2, under instructions from his client, have no
objection in permitting the applicant to compound the offence for
which the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, applicant is
permitted to compound the offence for which he is convicted and
consequently the order of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court dated 12/07/2005 in Criminal Case No. 581/2002 and the order
passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 30/06/2009 in Criminal
Appeal No. 26/2005 confirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision
Application No. 619/2009 are hereby quashed and set aside.
9. With
this, the present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. It is reported that the applicant has already
surrendered pursuant to the earlier order of conviction, and,
therefore, on the present application being allowed, the applicant
shall be set at free unless required for in some other case.
Direct
service is permitted.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top