SUNIL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the order-sheet dated March 07, 2011, both the parties, Mr. Sunil Jain, the Petitioner and Mr. Arsad Ali, Respondent No. 2, were present before this Court. They were also identified by their respective counsel. Their statements have also been recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and are available in the Court file. The compromise entered between the parties is also available in the Court file.

(2.) Both the learned Counsel are ad idem that the parties have entered into a compromise. Relying on the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 AIR(SC) 1907, Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the amount of percentage, which can be imposed upon the Petitioner, should be reduced from 15% to 5%. According to the learned Counsel, the judgment was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.05.2010. Since the judgment is prospective in nature, the Petitioner did not have any opportunity to apply before the learned trial court for compounding of the offence. It is only subsequently that the Petitioner is entitled to take the benefit of judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra). Therefore, in the interest of justice, 15%, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, should really be reduced to 5%.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.