TULSIBHAI KHODABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 12. 1. 2009 passed by the learned 7th Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana in criminal case No. 5163 of 2006 by which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant as per section 357 (3) of Cr. Procedure Code as well as order dated 19. 11. 2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2009 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr Mahendra Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody. It is submitted by him that the petitioner is convicted for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court and in appeal also the Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and order and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Both these orders are under challenge in this revision.

(3.) IT is submitted by him that the matter is settled between the original complainant and the accused. He has placed on record the terms of settlement which is ordered to be taken on record. Mr Mahendra Patel has handed over a Demand Draft for Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 17. 12. 2009 drawn on HDFC Bank, Patan Branch in respect of the cheque which was dishonoured in pursuance to which the present proceedings are pending to the complainant in the court itself. The complainant is present in the court. He has submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and he has received full and finial payment as per the settlement and that he has no grievance against the present petitioner. He is identified by learned Advocate Mr Gajendra Baghel. He has submitted that he will file his Vakalatnama during the course of the day. 3. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak v Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd (AIR 2008 SC 716) to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Revision Application is required to be allowed.