LIYAKATALI ABBASALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms.Chetna Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 ­ State and Mr.Hriday Buch, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 ­ original complainant.

(2.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, and as it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the entire cheque amount has been paid and it is agreed by the petitioner - original accused to pay interest on the principal amount of Rs.2,97,000.00 at the rate of 7.5% per annum i.e. Rs.3,13,706.00 in three equal installments as per the undertaking filed today and it is requested to permit the petitioner - original accused to compound the offence, present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) TODAY when the present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Mr.Arpit Kapadia learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner ­ original accused has stated that the petitioner ­ original accused has deposited in all Rs.2,97,000.00 with the learned trial court which would be the cheque amount. He has also stated at the bar that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the petitioner - original accused has agreed to pay / deposit a further sum of Rs.3,13,706.00 (being interest on Rs.2,97,000.00 at the rate of 7.5% per annum for 169 months) in three equal installments and the first installment to be paid on or before 30/12/2012, second installment to be paid on or before 28/2/2013 and third and last installment to be paid on or before 30/4/2013. He has also stated at the bar that the respondent No.2 ­ original complainant be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,97,000.00 which the petitioner has deposited in the court below. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioner has filed a separate undertaking, affirmed by the petitioner stating that he shall pay / deposit a further sum of Rs.3,13,706.00 towards interest on Rs.2,97,000.00 in three equal installments, as stated above. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioner shall see to it that the aforesaid amount is deposited with the learned trial court in three equal installments, as stated above, failing which not only the petitioner can be saddled with proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act and for breach of undertaking, and even conviction passed by the learned trial court stands. He has also stated at the bar that the petitioner has also deposited a further sum of Rs.44,550.00 being 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority at Ahmedabad which the petitioner - original accused is required to deposit in view of 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, so as to enable the petitioner ­ accused to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.