Gujarat High Court
Jabbarsingh Premsingh Purohit vs State Of Gujarat on 11 October, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.RA/230/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 230 of 2021
==========================================================
JABBARSINGH PREMSINGH PUROHIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JV VAGHELA(5809) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS M. M. JANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 11/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
Ms. M. M. Jani, learned advocate has instruction to appear for
and on behalf of respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant. She is in
process of filing her appearance on behalf of the original complainant.
Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama of Ms. M. M. Jani for and
on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant viz. Satish Pokardas
Thadani, who is present before the Court and duly identified by Ms.
M.M. Jani, learned advocate.
1. RULE. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, waives service of notice of
rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1- State of Gujarat as also
learned advocate Ms. M. M. Jani, waives service of notice of rule
for and on behalf of respondent No.2- original complainant.
2. This revision application is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.35,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1019 of 2015 convicting the
petitioner-accused for an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') and directed his to undergo simple imprisonment of one
R/CR.RA/230/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021
year, and in default of payment of cheque amount, he is ordered to
undergo further 30 days of simple imprisonment. The said order
has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated
13.03.2020 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2018. Hence,
both these orders are under challenge before this Court.
3. Ms. M. M. Jani, learned advocate placed on record affidavit duly
affirmed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, who is
personally present before the Court and identified by learned
Advocate representing him. The said affidavit is taken on record.
As recorded in the affidavit, the complainant has no objection if
this Revision Application is allowed and the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Competent Court
and confirmed by the Appellate Court is set aside.
4. Since the matter is settled between the parties and in view of
Section 147 of 'the Act', the offence is made compoundable, now
the settlement arrived at between the parties is required to be
encouraged. In view of the compromise deed affirmed by the
original complainant as per the terms recorded therein, the
applicant - accused has paid the amount as stated in it. It is further
stated therein that the respondent No.2-original complainant is not
interested in sending the applicant in jail and he has no objection if
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed upon
the applicants - accused is quashed and set aside. In view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.35,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1019 of 2015 as also the
R/CR.RA/230/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2021
judgment and order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in
Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2018, are hereby quashed and set aside.
5. In view of sub- Section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the applicant is hereby acquitted from all the
charges levelled against him.
6. Though compounding under Section 147 of the Act is made
permissible, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal reported in AIR
2010 SC 1907, the accused is required to pay cost to be deposited
with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority at the rate of 15% of
cheque amount. However, in view of Para No.17 of the said
judgment the discretion is vested with the Court. Considering the
financial condition of the petitioner, which is confirmed by the
complainant, which has prompted him to accept the less amount
towards the settlement. Therefore, ends of justice would be met, if
the amount of Rs.37,000/- as stated by learned advocate for the
petitioner, which has been deposited by him before the Appellate
Court pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, shall be
appropriated towards the cost and the Trial Court is directed to
transmit the said amount towards the cost of this litigation to the
Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of fifteen
days from today.
7. The application stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
MEHUL
