Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Somsinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.RA/721/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 721 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI SOMSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK Y KOTHARI(6895) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 21/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Mr.H.R.Gurjar, learned advocate has instructions to appear
on behalf of Respondent No.2 - original complainant. He is in
process of filing his vakalatnama. He may do so during the
course of the day. Mr.Anil Mohanlal Gurjar, respondent No.2 -
R/CR.RA/721/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2021
complainant, who is present before the Court and duly identified
by the learned advocate representing him. He places on record
an affidavit affirmed on 16th October, 2021 disclosing that the
matter is settled between the parties and therefore, if judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by Magistrate and
confirmed by the appellate Court is quashed and set aside, he
has no objection as he has received the due payment which he
acknowledges in presence of his learned advocate before the
Court. The said affidavit is taken on record.
RULE. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent no.1 - State and Shri H.R.Gurjar, learned advocate,
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.
This Criminal Revision Application is directed against an
order passed by the learned 25th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vadodara, 20.8.2019 dated Criminal Case No.3098
of 2013 convicting the applicant for an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and ordered him to
undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Over and above that,
Rs.76,000/- being the cheque amount, was ordered to be paid
to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment
of compensation, he is ordered to further undergo one month
Simple Imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction and
order of sentence was carried in Appeal being Criminal Appeal
No. 244 of 2019 which also came to be dismissed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaodara vide order
dated 14.09.2021. Both these orders are under challenge in
this Criminal Revision Application.
R/CR.RA/721/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2021
However, in view of compounding arrived at between the
parties and when the matter is settled between them, pursuant
to which the cheque amount is already paid to the
complainant, as disclosed in the affidavit, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Magistrate is required to be quashed and set aside. In view of
Section 147 of 'the Act', when offence is made compoundable,
the genuine compounding entered into between the parties is
required to be encouraged. Considering the affidavit, it is clear
that the compounding is genuine, and therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned 25th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara,
20.8.2019 dated Criminal Case No.3098 of 2013 confirmed by
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaodara in Criminal
Appeal No. 244 of 2019 dated 14.09.2021are hereby quashed
and set aside.
In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is acquitted of the
charge levelled against him. Since the compounding between
the parties is arrived at revisional stage before this Court, the
applicant is required to be imposed cost in view of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907.
The applicant is required to deposit 15% of the cheque amount
i.e. Rs.11,400/- towards costs to the Gujarat State Legal
Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today. If
the applicant fails to deposit the said amount within the time
R/CR.RA/721/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2021
prescribed, as aforesaid, he shall be taken into custody by
issuing non-bailable warrant by the learned trial Court and the
present order shall stand automatically recalled and he would
serve the sentence. Registry is hereby directed to issue final
writ of this revision application after ascertaining that the
aforesaid cost amount is deposited by the applicant.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application
shall stand disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
ASHISH M. GADHIYA
