BHAVESH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. K.P. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent ­ State. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is take up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of the present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the original accused/appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2011, by which the learned Additional City Sessions Judge has imposed cost to the tune of 15% of the disputed cheque amount, though, the matter was settled between the parties as well as the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, below Exhibit-13 application filed by the present petitioner/ appellant under Section 465(2) of the Code, by which the application filed by the present petitioner to pass an appropriate order for recalling the order of imposition of cost to the tune of 15% of the disputed cheque amount , was dismissed.

(3.) MR . Vaibhav N. Sheth, learned Advocate, appearing for the applicant has submitted that, though, a compromise purshis was filed on 9.1.2013, the learned City Sessions Judge, has not passed the order on appeal on the same day but a detailed order was passed only on 11.1.2013. It was further argued that by filing an application under Section 465 (2) at Exhibit-13 it was brought to the notice of the court about non-hearing of the Advocate on the part of imposing cost and also the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned order came to be passed. He further submitted that, in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed that the directions issued in the said judgment with regarding to imposing cost should be given effect prospectively. He, therefore, submitted that the Criminal Case, being of 2009, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. He further submitted that in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the present application may be allowed.