SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MR. ANTHONY AGNELO D'COSTA, PRESENTLY IN CENTRAL JAIL COLVALE – Appellant
Versus
MR. PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA GHADIWADAR AND ANR – Respondent
CRIR 16/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2017

MR. ANTHONY AGNELO D'COSTA,

PRESENTLY IN CENTRAL JAIL

COLVALE.,

... Petitioner

Versus

MR. PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA GHADIWADAR

AND ANR.,

... Respondents

Mr. S. Shet, Advocate for the petitioner.

Petitioner present.

Repondent no.1 present in person.

Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2.

Coram:- PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

Date:-

24th July, 2017

P.C.

The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of

conviction by which he was sentenced to suffer simple

imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

three months which was maintained by the lower Appellate

Court by modifying the amount of compensation to the extent of

Rs.1,50,000/-.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Sessions Court. Today the

petitioner and the respondent no.1 have filed consent terms and

have sought leave of the Court to compound the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

2

CRIR/16/2017

{for short "NIA"}. The Consent terms which are signed by both

the petitioner and the respondent no.1 are duly identified by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. The consent terms are taken on

record and marked "X" for identification.

3. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute,

permission to compound the offence punishable under Section

138 of the NIA is granted subject to deposit of 15% of cheque

amount in favour of Goa State Legal Services Authority, Panaji,

in view of Apex Court Judgment reported in (2010)5 SCC 663 in

the case of Damodar.S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H.

Consequently, conviction of the petitioner is quashed and set

aside and is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section

138 of the NIA. The respondent no.1 is at liberty to withdraw the

amount deposited in the Sessions Court.

4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

vn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top