Baba Provision Stores, Through ... vs Laxmi Bahuuddeshiya Sahakari ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9590 Bom

                                              1                         CriWP 900/17

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD



               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 900 OF 2017


Baba   Provision   Stores,   Through   its                             Petitioner
Pro.,   Satyanarayan   S/o   Bhanvarlal 
Vyas,   Aged   61   Years,   Occupation 
Business,   Resident   of   Moti   Nagar, 
Latur, Taluka and District Latur

V E R S U S

Laxmi       Bahuuddeshiya          Sahakari                            Respondent
Patsanstha   Ltd.   Latur,   through   its 
Secretary,   Arun   S/o.   Pandurang   More, 
Aged   Major,   Occupation   Service, 
Resident of Shop No.32 and 33, Mahatma 
Phule Bhaji Market, Kavva Road, Latur, 
Taluka and District Latur

                                        
        Mr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner
         Mr. N.D. Kendre, Advocate for the Respondent


                                         CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This petition is filed to challenge the order

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur

in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2013.

2 CriWP 900/17

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. The submissions made and the record show that

the present petitioner was accused in private

complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class had convicted the petitioner and he was

directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. This

order of Judicial Magistrate was challenged by filing

Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2013. While suspending the

sentence, the Sessions Court had imposed condition of

depositing Rs.25,000/- and, due to this, an amount of

Rs.25,000/- was deposited in the Sessions Court. Then

the Sessions Court allowed the Appeal and the present

petitioner came to be acquitted. In the order of

acquittal itself, the learned Sessions Judge had

directed to return the amount deposited by the present

petitioner after the period of appeal is over, which

could have been challenged by filing proceeding in the

High Court. After that period, present appellant had

filed application for getting back the amount, but the

application is rejected by Sessions Court by observing

3 CriWP 900/17

that Criminal Revision is filed by the complainant and

is pending in this Court.

4. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal

Procedure which enables the Court to direct to deposit

any amount in advance in any Court. Thus, the Court

had no power to retain the amount deposited by the

accused when he is acquitted. Even this Court could

not have directed the accused to deposit that amount.

The Sessions court has considered the pendency of

revision for rejecting the application. Such order

cannot sustain in law.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

The order made by learned Additional Sessions Judge

below Exh.25 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2013 is set

aside. The amount be returned forthwith to the

petitioner-accused.

                                          ( T.V. NALAWADE, J. ) 
            


SRM/13/12/17



                                    4                         CriWP 900/17