Bombay High Court
Vishal Shyam Gurnani vs State Of Maharashtra Amd Anr on 20 May, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:22689
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.10074 OF 2026
Vishal Shyam Gurnani )... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. )... Respondents
-----
Mr. Santosh Budhwani a/w Adv. Shahbaz Pathan i/b Mr. H.K. Sharma
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, AP.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Asmeeta Bhoir for Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 20th MAY 2026 (VACATION COURT) P.C. :
1) The Petitioner is accused No.5 in Criminal Case No.4585/SS of 2016. That criminal case resulted in conviction of the Petitioner.
The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, had passed the following Order.
"Order
1. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby convicted for the offence RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/6 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and accused Nos.2 to 5 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One) year.
2. The accused nos.1 to 5 are hereby directed to pay compensation of 1.5 times of the cheques amount i.e. Exhibit 13 and 15 with interest 9 % per annum to the complainant as per Sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the date of issue of cheques.
3. The present bail bonds of the accused are cancelled.
4. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
5. Copy of the judgment be sent to the accused free of costs.
Dictated in open Court."
2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order passed by the learned JMFC, the Petitioner preferred Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The Petitioner had taken out an application for suspension of sentence passed by the learned JMFC. The learned Sessions Judge, while deciding Criminal M.A. No.2876 of 2025, had suspended sentence passed by the learned JMFC till decision of appeal subject deposit of amount of 20 per cent from the total amount awarded by the learned trial court within 60 days. The deposit RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/6 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc was to be made in the trial court.
3) The Petitioner was not the only Appellant and that there were three different M.As. for suspension of the sentence by the other two accused. One such M.A. was Criminal M.A. No.2875 of 2025 and other being Criminal M.A. No.2877 of 2025. In all these cases, the Criminal Application was allowed, subject to deposit of 20 per cent of the amount.
4) Mr. Budhwani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had delayed in paying the said amount and therefore, the Petitioner had preferred Application before the learned Sessions Court for the purpose of allowing him time to pay the said amount. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides had dismissed the application. This is why the present writ petition is filed. The reasons given by the Petitioner was that he was in financial constraints. The Petitioner was seeking an extension of only two weeks.
5) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had stated that the period of two weeks' extension ought to have been granted. RaJesh Chittewan, PS 3/6 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc I was inclined to grant two weeks time to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner advanced one more submission. He stated that there were three different Criminal Applications filed by three accused, namely, M.A. No.2875 of 2025, M.A. No.2876 of 2025 and M.A. No.2877 of 2025. He submits that he is ready to pay 20 per cent of the amount, however, the amount should not be 60 per cent in all the three M.As., but it should be 20 per cent cumilatively for all the three M.As., taken together. The reason given by him is that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that there cannot be a deposit of 20 per cent in totality.
6) It is pertinent to note that when the Application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of extension of time, the prayer was to deposit 20 per cent of the amount. In the said Application, which is at page 'F', the Applicant, i.e. the Petitioner herein had not raised any such contention about 20 per cent of the amount cumilatively. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant had accepted all the three Orders in M.A. No.2876 of 2025 and that he had not challenged the said amount. If at all his contention is to be heard that amount of 20 per cent should be considered cumulatively in M.A. RaJesh Chittewan, PS 4/6 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc Nos.2875, 2876 and 2877 of 2025, then it amounts to not accepting the Order dated 30th December 2025, passed in Criminal M.A. No.2876 of 2025. In such event, it was incumbent upon the Applicant to have challenge the said condition of imposing of 20 per cent of the amount each. It is settled position of law that the Order has to be interpreted as it is and it is not permissible for the Petitioner to interpret the Order according to his desire.
7) Assuming for argument that the Order is wrong, it is settled position of law, that the Petitioner cannot say that he would not comply with the orders by branding the Order as a wrong order. Even a wrong order also requires same obedience, till it is set aside, modified or reversed by higher authority. In this case, for the first time, a completely new case has been made out that the Petitioner is seeking an extension to deposit 20 per cent of the total amount, cumulatively, in M.A. No.2875, 2876 and 2877 of 2025. This cannot be countenanced at all.
8) As indicated above, had it been a case where the Applicant was accepting the Order dated 30 th December 2025 and has applied RaJesh Chittewan, PS 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc only for the purpose of extension, then the scenario would have been different. However, since the Applicant is now quarreling with the position as to what would be 20 per cent, this is not a fit case for entertaining the Petition.
9) Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 6/6
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.05.22
19:58:23 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:15:15 :::