Suresh Babarao Hood vs Sunil Ramkrishna Rajgure
2017 Latest Caselaw 9496 Bom

                                          1                                      APL496.15.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 496 OF 2015


 APPLICANT                 : Suresh Babarao Hood
                             Aged about 68 years, Occu. Business,
                             R/o Sai Nagar, Naka, Amravati,
                             Tah. and District Amravati.

                                              VERSUS

 NON-APPLICANT  : Sunil Ramkrishna Rajgure,
                  Aged about 48 years, Occu. Tax Practitioner,
                  R/o Ravi Nagar, Amravati,
                  Tal. and District Amravati.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Shri D. M. Upadhye, Advocate for the applicant.
            Shri T. G. Bansod, Advocate for the non-applicant.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

                      DATE     : DECEMBER, 11, 2017



 ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Shri D. M. Upadhye, the learned counsel for the

applicant submits that he is the original complainant. He filed a

2 APL496.15.odt

complaint against the non-applicant for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said

complaint, the learned Magistrate found that the non-applicant

herein, who is represented by Shri T.G. Bansod, Advocate, has

committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and

accordingly convicted and sentenced the non-applicant.

3. Against such conviction, the present non-applicant

preferred an appeal. The said appeal was registered as Criminal

Appeal No.2 of 2008. While staying the conviction, the learned

lower Appellate Court directed the present non-applicant to deposit

an amount of Rs.57,000/-. Accordingly, the present non-applicant

deposited Rs.57,000/- to avail the stay granted in his favour.

4. The criminal appeal filed by the present non-applicant

was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on

08.01.2014.

5. Thereafter, the present non-applicant filed an

application i.e. Misc. Criminal Application No. 76/2014 for recovery

3 APL496.15.odt

of Rs.57,000/- from the present applicant, who in the meanwhile has

withdrawn the amount of Rs.57,000/- deposited by the non-

applicant. The said application is allowed by the learned Sessions

Judge and hence, the present application under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure.

6. The order impugned dated 20.6.2015 reads as under :

"Say not filed hence issue jungam warrant against the non-applicant."

The aforesaid order shows that the learned Sessions Judge has

neither applied his mind at all to the given set of facts nor to the

relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

impugned order is non-speaking. The reasons are the mirror of the

thoughts of the Courts.

7. (i) In that view of the matter, the order impugned cannot

stand to the scrutiny of law. The order dated 20.6.2015 in Misc.

Criminal Application No. 76/2014 is hereby set aside.

(ii) Misc. Criminal Application No. 76/2014 to be decided

afresh by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in accordance with

law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

4 APL496.15.odt

(iii) The parties agreed to appear before the learned Sessions

Judge on 19.12.2017. The learned Sessions Judge to decide the

application within a period of one month from 19.12.2017.

8] The criminal application is allowed and disposed of.

Rule is made absolute.

JUDGE

Diwale