PATEL CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Shri Kirit Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. 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 parties have settled the dispute amicably and the applicant herein ­ original accused has already deposited the entire cheque amount i.e. Rs.50,000/ with the Registry of this Court and as the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to permit the applicant to compound the offence for which he has been convicted, present Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) PRESENT Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant herein ­ original accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2963 of 2008, by which the applicant herein ­ original accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 for dishonour of the cheque of Rs.50,000/ as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2011 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the applicant herein ­ original accused confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

(3.) SHRI Kirit Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 ­ original complainant. He has stated at the Bar, under the instruction from respondent No.2 ­ original complainant, who is personally present in the Court that on permitting the original complainant to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/ which the applicant has deposited, he has no objection if the applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted. He has also produced on record the affidavit affirmed by the original complainant submitting accordingly.