SANJAY NAGORAO KADU Vs. GANESH TRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid application in revision is preferred by original accused in Criminal Case No. 607/2007 of the Court of J.M.F.C. Achalpur, instituted upon a private complaint made by respondent No. 1 on the accusation of the applicant having committed an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for committing of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal preferred by him assailing said judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was dismissed by the appellate Court. The applicant has, thereafter preferred this application for assailing the order passed by the trial court as well as the appellate Court. After this application in revision was admitted by order dated 07.03.2013, perusal of said compromise terms reveals that the applicant and respondent No. 1 herein have settled the dispute on terms and conditions mentioned in said compromise deed. The learned counsel for the parties having informed the Court that they have kept present the parties before the Court, the parties present and as identified by the respective Advocates on their behalf were asked regarding the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise deed and thereon both the parties have unequivocally informed of the settlement having arrived upon terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise deed. Upon specific query made to respondent No. 1, he has submitted that the offence for which the applicant was convicted by the trial court has been compounded by him and the applicant.

(2.) Mr. Jawde, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that considering the nature of transaction, which has given rise to the proceedings in between the parties, the applicant may not be saddled with the costs at the rate as stipulated in the guidelines given by the apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Syed Babalal H., 2010 AIR(SC) 1907. There appears substance in said submission after taking into consideration the nature of transaction, which had given rise to the proceeding between the parties. Since the guidelines itself reveal that the discretion is given to the Court regarding imposing cost to be paid to the legal aid committee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears proper to levy cost of Rs. 15,000/- only. In the premise aforesaid and the offence for which the order of conviction and sentence was passed being compoundable in view of provisions of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same being compounded, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the applicant is hereby acquitted from the accusation of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bail bonds, if any executed by the applicant and his surety, stand cancelled.