Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1028 (RAJ)

Raman Bhai Patel v. Apex Metcam Pvt. Ltd.

2015-05-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 31.7.2008 passed by learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur city, Jaipur in cr. appeal no.20/2007 whereby he has confirmed the impugned judgment dated 25.7.2007 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) and Judl. Magistrate No.15, Jaipur city, Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the statement of complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act. The police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate who has framed the charges under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Sanjay Bhatia and exhibited certain documents. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above vide judgment dated 25.7.2007. 3. Against the said judgment dated 25.7.2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Distt & Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur who vide judgment dated 31.7.2008 upheld the judgment dated 25.7.2007. Hence this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the parties i.e. Raman Bhai Patel, Proprietor of M/s. Ghanshyam Ind. and Sanjay Bhatia, Director of M/s. Apex Metcam Pvt. Ltd. have entered into a compromise which is duly signed and attested by the respective Advocates of both the sides, and to this effect, he has filed an application for taking the said compromise on record, and requested that this revision petition may be allowed in the light of contents mentioned in the compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State do not oppose the said prayer and support the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record including the application filed for taking compromise on record as also the compromise-deed arrived at between the parties. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record including the application filed for taking compromise on record as also the compromise-deed arrived at between the parties. 7. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the compromise arrived at between the parties, I think it just and proper to allow this revision petition in the light of compromise so arrived at between the parties. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The impugned orders of both the courts below dated 25.7.2007 and 31.7.2008 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. (iii) The accused petitioner was on bail, he need not to surrender now. His bail bonds stand canceled.