CR.RA/356/1999 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 356 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PRAJAPATI SHANKERBHAI SHIVABHAI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KANUBHAI I PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date : 22/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT I have heard Mr. K.I.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant[original accused] and the heir of the deceased complainant who is present in the Court. The parties have stated that they have compounded the matter. Heir of the deceased complainant is the only son of the deceased complainant and has also signed the affidavit tendered in Criminal Misc. Application 16718 of 2008. It is submitted by CR.RA/356/1999 2/2 JUDGMENT Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant that this Court may record compromise as the offence is compoundable, and acquit the accused accepting the compromise. Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned APP has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed as the parties have willingly compounded the offence. Having considered the totality placed before the Court, accepting the compromise, the parties are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is found proved by both the lower courts against the applicant, and the accused obviously shall have to be declared acquitted. It is relevant to note that the person representing the aggrieved complainant, i.e. the only son of the deceased complainant is present and he also wishes that the accused may be acquitted as the amount of cheque bounced has been received by him. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application is allowed on account of acceptance of the compromise. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.1.98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi in Criminal Case No. 1475 of 1993 as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 25.6.1999 are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is hereby acquitted on account of the compromise that has taken place today between the parties, which is tendered before the Court. As the accused is acquitted because of the compromise between the parties, the amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the applicant, original accused on proper identification. Revision application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [C.K. BUCH, J.] pirzada/-