Gujarat High Court High Court

Patel vs State on 27 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Patel vs State on 27 August, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/401/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 401 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

PATEL
AMBALAL KANJIDAS - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
JIGAR G GADHAVI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MG NANAVATY, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
TEJAS P SATTA for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Petitioner
was original accused no.1. He has been convicted by the Court of
Magistrate for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay
fine of Rs. 10,000/-. It may be noted that other two accused were
either discharged or acquitted.

Petitioner
challenged the order of conviction before the Sessions Court. His
appeal was however, dismissed. He has therefore, preferred present
Criminal Revision Application.

Learned
advocates appearing for the parties had stated that issues have been
settled between the petitioner and original complainant. Under the
settlement petitioner had deposited Rs.3,96,000/- before the Court
under two different cheques which covered the entire cheque amount.
Complainant has agreed to accept the said amount towards full and
final settlement under the cheque.

Considering
the above developments, I am of the opinion that conviction recorded
by learned Magistrate as confirmed by Sessions Court is required to
be set aside. However, in view of decision in case of Damodar S.
Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 663, in such cases, Court should normally impose cost. General
guidelines have been provided in the said decision. Counsel for the
petitioner however, submitted that near relative of petitioner was
seriously ill at the relevant point of time due to which he could not
repay the dues. He submitted that some reasonable amount be fixed
towards cost.

Considering
the submissions made, this revision application is disposed of with
following directions :

Impugned
judgements dated 30.10.2009 and 29.7.2010 are set aside.

Amount
of Rs. 3,96,000/- lying with the Registry be paid over to respondent
no.2 with accrued interest, if any.

Petitioners
shall pay Rs. 20,000/- towards cost to the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority within four weeks from today.

Direct
service is permitted.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top