Tapankumar S/O Pramodnath Ojha vs Prabhulal Natthulal Dave
2017 Latest Caselaw 3173 Bom

                                                    1                      revn126.16.odt

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.126/2016

      Shri Tapankumar s/o Pramodnath Ojha,
      aged about 57 years, Occ. Contractor,
      Prop. Gurudatta Enterprises, Behind
      Sunflag School, Datta Mandir, Warthi,
      Bhandara Road, Tq. Bhandara.          ....APPLICANT

                               ...V E R S U S...

 1. Prabhulal s/o Natthulal Dave, 
    r/o Datta Mandir, Wagjai Nagar Road,
    Ambegaon (Khurd), Katraj, Pune, Tq. Dist. Pune.

 2. State of Maharashtra through
      Police Station Officer, Police Station,
      Bhandara, Tq. Dist. Bhandara.                           ...NON APPLICANTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. S. K. Thengri, Advocate for applicant.
 Mr. R. R. Prajapati, Advocate for non applicant no.1.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- 14.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. The proceedings were initiated against the present

applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The learned Magistrate, vide judgment and order of conviction

dated 12.06.2016 in Summary Criminal Case No.96/2012

convicted the applicant and directed him to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months. The applicant was also directed

2 revn126.16.odt

that he should deposit Rs.4,00,000/- by way of compensation.

The learned Magistrate directed that this amount of compensation

shall be deposited in four installments with a gap of 15 days.

3. Aggrieved by his conviction, an appeal was filed before

the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, which was registered as

Criminal Appeal No.12/2016. In the said appeal, an application

for suspension of substantive jail sentence and for grant of bail

was also moved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara

on 08.07.2016 suspended the substantive jail sentence during the

pendency of the appeal with a condition that the applicant shall

furnish the bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and shall deposit

Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. The present revision is filed before this Court since the

applicant is aggrieved by the condition of directing him to deposit

Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. Mr. Thengri, learned counsel for the applicant relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S.

Dahanukar .vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr reported in

2007 (5) SCALE 452. To file an appeal is the right given to the

applicant under the statute. He has availed the said right. The

appeal is admitted by the Court below and it is yet to be decided

3 revn126.16.odt

therefore whether the applicant is guilty of committing the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or

not is still not finally decided.

6. In that view of the matter, the imposition of condition

of depositing Rs.1,00,000/-, in my view, cannot stand to the

scrutiny of law. Hence, the revision application is allowed. The

condition of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the applicant

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara vide order

below Exh.-4 dated 089.07.2016 is hereby set aside. The applicant

shall execute bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as directed by

the Court below.

The learned appellate court shall see that the appeal is

decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period

of one year.

The parties are directed to appear before the appellate

Court on 30.06.2017.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as

to costs.

JUDGE

kahale