JAYENDRA BHIKHALAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 � State of Gujarat and Shri Y.J. Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 � original complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as it is reported that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the applicant herein � original accused has paid the entire cheque amount to respondent No.2 herein � original complainant and in view of the settlement the applicant prays and request to permit him to compound the offence for which he has been convicted, present Criminal 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 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the applicant herein � original accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2007 of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Godhra in Criminal Case No.3821 of 2000 convicting the applicant herein � original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") for dishonor of the cheque of Rs.5,46,000/ as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court � learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2007 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal preferred by the applicant herein � original accused confirming the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) SHRI Y.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 � original complainant Bank has confirmed that under the OTS, the applicant is required to pay a total sum of Rs.53,70,000/ against which a total sum of Rs.9,06,000/ is already paid by now (inclusive of the cheque amount). He has also stated at the Bar under the instructions from his client that in view of the above undertaking filed by the applicant and subject to observing that in case there is any default in any of the installments, in that case, the conviction stands and even the applicant shall be liable to face consequences/prosecution for breach of the undertaking, the respondent No.2 � original complainant has no objection if the applicant herein � original accused is permitted to compound the offence for which he has been convicted.