CR.RA/589/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 589 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PADMINIBEN HITENDRABHAI PANCHAL - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIL M AGRAWAL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR IM PANDYA ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.D. SHAH Date : 04/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Mr. Pandya, learned APP waives the service of rule on behalf of respondents. 1. By way of this application, the applicant CR.RA/589/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008. 2. Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has already deposited the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.19,330/- and amount of compensation i.e Rs.5,670/- before the trial Court on 10.01.2001 and 18.03.2008, respectively. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his say, Mr. Agrawal has produced photocopies of the receipts dated 10.01.2001 and 18.03.2008 issued by the trial Court which are ordered to be taken on record. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The applicant, herein, had issued a cheque bearing CR.RA/589/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT No.475983 drawn on Dena Bank dated 22.12.1998 for an amount of Rs.19,330/- towards the goods purchased by her from the original complainant- respondent No.2, herein. However, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. Hence, respondent No.2 filed a complaint being Criminal Case No.494 of 1999 against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad (for short 'trial Court). During the pendency of proceedings before the trial Court, the applicant deposited the amount of cheque in the trial Court on 10.01.2001. In view of the above, at the end of the trial, the trial Court took lenient view and sentenced the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment of Till Rising Court and to pay Rs.25,000/- and in case of default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three days for the aforesaid offence. 4. The applicant, thereafter, preffered CR.RA/589/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT appeal against the judgment and order of the trial Court being Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008 before the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Sessions Court No.2, Ahmedabad(for short 'appellate Court). The appellate Court after hearing all the parties, rejected the appeal of the applicant and issued non-bailable warrant against her and also directed her to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Court as well as to pay the amount in question within the stipulated time as directed by the trial Court. However, while passing the impugned judgment and order the appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant had already deposited the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.19,330/- as well as amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,670/- before the trial Court. The appellate court also overlooked the fact that the appellant had already undergone simple imprisonment of one day of Till Rising Court as imposed by the trial Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by CR.RA/589/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT the appellate Court is required to be modified. 5. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008 is partly modified. The order of the appellate Court issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant to suffer the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trail Court as well as to pay the amount of compensation is quashed and set aside. Rest of judgment and order of the appellate Court stands confirmed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (M.D. Shah,J.) Umesh/