Bombay High Court
Musa Shaikh Saga vs Kailashwasi Dilip Hari Amrate ... on 10 August, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 18.2016Cri.Revn.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
912 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2016
Musa Shaikh Saga
Age : 45 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o. 438, Subhash Nagar,
Lane No.5, Old Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule .. Applicant
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
Kailashwasi, Dilip Hari Amrate
Lokmangar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Dhule.
Through, Dharmraj Ananda Patil,
Age : 42 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. C/o. Kailashwasi, Dilip Hari Amrate
Lokmangar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Dhule, Lane No.5,
In front of Mahanagar Palika School No.9,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. .. Respondent
...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri. Qureshi Shaikhlal Abdul G
Advocate for Respondents : Shri. M.S. Sonawane
...
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4942 OF 2014
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: August 10, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. Heard Shri Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the revision
applicant i.e. original accused and Shri Sonawane, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent i.e. original complainant. The applicant
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:06:14 :::
2 18.2016Cri.Revn.doc
was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.8,
Dhule in Summary Criminal Case No.5003/2004 for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two
months and to pay a fine of Rs.16,000/- in default to undergo further
Simple Imprisonment for two months. The revision applicant had
preferred the Criminal Appeal No.58/2010 before the Sessions Court
at Dhule challenging the order of conviction passed by the
Magistrate, however the criminal appeal was also dismissed by the
Sessions Court vide the Judgment delivered on 04.04.2014.
Aggrieved by, the revision applicant has preferred the present revision
application.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned
Counsel appearing for the revision applicant submitted that, the
applicant had undergone the imprisonment from 09.07.2010 to
15.08.2010. The learned Counsel further submitted that, the
applicant has deposited a total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the Court
of JMFC, Dhule in three installments by Rs.5,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.12,000/-. The learned Counsel showed the receipts by which the
payments were made in Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at
Dhule.
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:06:14 :::
3 18.2016Cri.Revn.doc
3. The learned Counsel further submitted that, in view of the fact
that, the applicant has already undergone the sentence for one month
and one week and has also deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- as
was directed by this Court, the applicant now alternatively prays only
for modification of the sentence awarded to him and to release him
on the sentence already undergone and by imposing a fine of
Rs.20,000/- on him.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that,
appropriate orders may be passed in view of the alternative
submission made on behalf of the applicant. The learned Counsel
submitted that, the applicant has deposited the amount of
Rs.20,000/- in the trial Court and further prayed for remittance of
the said amount in favour of the respondent in case the Court inclines
to accept the alternate prayer made by the applicant.
5. It is not in dispute that, against the sentence of two months
simple imprisonment, the applicant had already undergone the
imprisonment for the period of one month and seven days. The
applicant has also deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- in the trial
Court. The amount of dishonoured cheque was Rs.14,208/-.
Considering the facts as aforesaid, the alternative prayer made by the
::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:06:14 :::
4 18.2016Cri.Revn.doc
applicant deserves consideration. The learned Counsel for the
respondent has also not opposed for accepting the request so made
on behalf of the applicant. For the reasons stated above, I deem it
appropriate to pass the following order.
ORDER
Though conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is confirmed, the sentence is
modified as under :
(i) The applicant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment already
undergone by him with fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand
Only).
(ii) The amount of fine has already been deposited by the applicant
in Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Dhule. The said amount
shall be paid to respondent i.e. original complainant.
(iii) The criminal revision application stands partly allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
ggp
