ORDER : 1. Both these Criminal Revision Applications have been preferred by the applicant under section 401 read with section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 9.10.2009 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2009 with Criminal Revision No.110 of 2009 as well as the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.2.2009 rendered by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.22, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1097 of 2005. 2. The applicant herein is the original accused and the respondent is original informant. That an FIR being CR.NO. 317/2004 dated 6.5.2004 came to be filed by the respondent for the offense punishable under sections 408, 465, 467, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged misappropriation of about Rs.22,00,000/-. That the investigation was carried out and the chargesheet was filed on 13.9.2005 in connection with the said FIR and Criminal Case No.1097 of 2005 was instituted in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. 3. After the trial, by a judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 in Criminal Case No. 1097 of 2005, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court no. 22 Ahmedabad was pleased to convict the applicant for the offences under sections 408, 465, 467, 471 of the IPC and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for six months. The applicant was acquitted for the offence under section 477-A of IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant approached the learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by way of Criminal Appeal No.48/2009. The respondent herein also challenged the said judgment and order dated 17.2.2009 by way of Criminal Revision Application No.110 of 2009 before the learned City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad for enhancement of sentence and fine. 5. By the judgment and order dated 09.10.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad enhanced the sentence of the applicant to 7 years and increased the fine to Rs.18,00,000/- out of which Rs. 17,00,000/- was to be paid to the respondent and the rest to the State. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein challenged the same before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 694 and 695 of 2009. 7. 17,00,000/- was to be paid to the respondent and the rest to the State. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein challenged the same before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 694 and 695 of 2009. 7. By a common order dated 18.11.2009 both the revisions came to be admitted by this Court and the applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and on the condition that within one month of his release he shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the applicant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per the condition above. Since then, both Criminal Revision Applications are pending for final adjudication. 8. Learned advocate Ms.Tejal Vashi for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court that the respondent No.1 has also filed Civil Suit no 1785 of 2006 against the applicant herein and his wife Manisha Rakesh Shah for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,14,616/- allegedly siphoned and misappropriated by the applicant plus accrued interest of Rs.9,67,964.51 aggregating to Rs.28,82,580.51 which is pending for adjudication. 9. Learned advocates for the respective parties have drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that during the pendency of the captioned revision applications before this Court, the applicant and the respondent No.1 herein have amicably resolved and settled the long standing disputes between them and an affidavit duly sworn in jointly by the applicant and the respondent No.1 herein affirmed on 18.4.2024 has been produced which is ordered to be taken on record. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are as under. “A. The revisionist agrees and undertakes that he will pay an amount of Rs. Rs.43,00,000/- (Forty Three Lakhs only) to the respondent company towards full and final settlement of the entire dispute between the parties and in lieu of that the revisionist will give a (demand draft) Bankers cheque for an amount Rs.43,00,000/- (Forty Three Lakhs only) of bearing demand draft no. 124411, dated 10-04-2024 drawn on Bank Axis Bank Ltd., in the name of Tracom Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., by way of/towards full and final settlement to resolve all disputes referred above (including civil and/or criminal) and the respondent has willingly accepted and agreed to the same. The said demand draft will be handed over to the respondent before this Honourable Court today i.e. on 18-4-2024. The said demand draft will be handed over to the respondent before this Honourable Court today i.e. on 18-4-2024. B. The respondent states on oath that in view of the present undertaking given by the applicant and the copy of demand draft shown to the present respondent, the present order of conviction dated 09.10.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Court no. 20, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, be quashed and set aside and the respondent would have no objection if the revisionist is acquitted. The applicant be directed to handover the copy of the demand draft before this Honourable Court and honour the undertaking given by him, failing which the applicant will entail the liability of facing criminal and or penal and civil action for non-adherance of the present undertaking/affidavit filed by him. C. Further all the pending cases i.e. Civil and/or Criminal (Including the pending civil suit), between the parties in different legal Forums and courts of law, shall stand disposed off and the revisionist and respondent would take all steps to get those cases disposed off in view of this consent terms. That all the disputes are treated to have been settled between parties and that the revisionist and/or respondent shall not initiate any action and/or case against each other henceforth. The revisionist further agrees that he shall have no right whatsoever to call back the amount paid to the respondent. D. The respondent shall forthwith unconditionally withdraw the Civil Suit no. 1785/2006 pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on realization of the Bankers Cheque for Rs. 43,00,000/. E. The revisionist would submit that amount that is to be paid by him to respondent is free from any encumbrance and does not fall within the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" as defined under section 2 (1) (t) of Prevention of Money laundering act, 2002 and acceptance of such amount will not constitute any offence on our part under the Prevention of money laundering act 2002. F. That in case of any breach of the present undertaking by any one party to this affidavit, only the party breaching it will be liable and responsible for future legal criminal and civil and/or any other actions available and the party having not breached will not be liable or responsible for the said breach.” 10. F. That in case of any breach of the present undertaking by any one party to this affidavit, only the party breaching it will be liable and responsible for future legal criminal and civil and/or any other actions available and the party having not breached will not be liable or responsible for the said breach.” 10. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has undergone the sentence for a period of one month and ten days as per the jail remarks dated 19.4.2024 which is produced on record by the learned APP and in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that the applicant has undergone the sentence for a period of one month and ten days, this Court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant. 11. On the other-hand, learned advocate Ms.Tejal Vashi appearing for the respondent No.1 has no objection if the sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant as the parties have arrived at amicable settlement of the disputes between them in terms of joint affidavit filed by both the parties. 12. Learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 511 wherein the Honourable Apex Court has observed as under. “8. The Court has not sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code separately as the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was considered enough. The fact, however, remains that the appellants stand convicted for a non-compoundable offence. The settlement/compromise and the prayer for composition based on the same, therefore, remains inconsequential in the light of the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1999) 2 SCC 213 , where this Court has held that an offence can be compounded only if it is compoundable no matter the Court may take into consideration the settlement between the parties while awarding sentence to the appellants. The following passage is apposite in this regard: "3. .... v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1999) 2 SCC 213 , where this Court has held that an offence can be compounded only if it is compoundable no matter the Court may take into consideration the settlement between the parties while awarding sentence to the appellants. The following passage is apposite in this regard: "3. .... Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences" provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms: "320. (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." 4. It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. - Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded. 5. However, considering the fact that the parties have come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that the first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he has already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith." 13. The applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 408, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and as per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences are not compoundable. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith." 13. The applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 408, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and as per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences are not compoundable. The complainant has filed the complaint as the applicant was working as an Accountant and it was alleged that the applicant being the Accountant had misappropriated the amount of the complainant and thus committed breach of trust. That for the amount that was misappropriated, a civil suit was filed and ultimately, the complainant was eager that the amount of misappropriation was recovered by him. That a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the civil suit and the dispute which was basically of the amount of misappropriation has been settled and the complainant has received the amount. The complainant being a private person and as the applicant was working with the complainant as an Accountant, the relation between the parties also assume importance. Moreover, the dispute being a dispute of amount misappropriated and also of a civil nature, the compromise deserves consideration. Both the parties are present before the Court and have admitted to the compromise deed and have urged this Court to allow the applications and consider the case in light of Mukesh Kumar (supra). 14. In view of the above, revision applications succeed in part. The judgment and order of conviction dated 9.10.2009 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2009 with Criminal Revision Application No.110 of 2009 is modified and the sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.