Arjun Pandurang Gawade vs Vijayrao Borawake Nagari ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7952 Bom

                                                                                       9-REVN-145-2018.doc




                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2018
                                                            WITH
                                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2018

                              Arjun Pandurang Gawade                              ...Applicant
                                    Versus
                              Vijayrao Borawake Nagari
                              Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit And Anr.               ...Respondents
                                                               ....
                              Mr. Prashant S. Hagare, Advocate for the Applicant.
                              Ms. Manisha A. Devkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                              Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
                              Mr. Arjun Pandurang Gawade, applicant present.
                              Mr. Ramchandra Laxman Abdagire, Manager, for Dr. Vijayrao Borawake
                              Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Phaltan, respondent No.2
                              Present.

                                                                      ....
                                                    CORAM       :      PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                                                    DATE        :      17th AUGUST, 2022.
                              PER COURT:

                              1.        The applicant is convicted for offences under Section 138 of

                              Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment and order dated 22 nd

                              June, 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phaltan in

                              Summary Criminal Case No.261 of 2010 and sentenced to suffer

                              simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of

                              Rs.2,50,000/-. The appeal preferred by the applicant challenging

                              the judgment of the trial Court has been dismissed vide judgment

                              and vide order dated 17th February, 2018 passed by learned
           Digitally signed
           by SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR

JAMADAR    Date:
           2022.08.17
                              Sajakali Jamadar                      1 of 4
           20:09:15 +0530
                                                          9-REVN-145-2018.doc




Additional Sessions Judge, Satara.

2.        This revision application has been preferred challenging both

the judgments passed by the Subordinate Courts.                  During

pendency of this application sentence imposed by the trial Court

and the confirmed by the Sessions Court has been suspended by

this Court vide order dated 26th March, 2018. the applicant had

undertaken to deposit the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before this

Court within three weeks from the date of the said order.

3.        In accordance with order dated 26th March, 2018, the

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been deposited in this Court by the

revision applicant. During the pendency of appeal, the revision

applicant has been deposited Rs.10,000/- before the Sessions

Court.

4.        Both the parties has arrived at amicable settlement and

executed consent terms dated 19th July, 2022. As per the consent

terms, the parties have agreed that the respondent/complainant be

allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the revision

applicant in this Court as well as before the Sessions Court, Satara.

The respondent No.1/complainant has no objection to dispose of

the present revision application in view of the settlement and it is

agreed between the parties that the respondent No.1 has no



Sajakali Jamadar                    2 of 4
                                                            9-REVN-145-2018.doc




objection to set aside the sentence imposed on the applicant. The

consent terms are taken on record and the marked as 'X' for

identification.

5.        The revision applicant/accused and respondent No.1/

complainant are present in the Court. They have confirmed the

terms of settlement.

6.        In view of the above, I pass the following order :

                                   ORDER

i. Criminal Revision Application No. 145 of 2018 is allowed;

ii. The respondent No.1/complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the revision applicant in this Court along with accrued interest, if any;

iii. The respondent No.1/complainant is also allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the revision applicant before the Sessions Court along with accrued interest, if any;

iv. The revision applicant shall co-operate with the complainant in withdrawal of the amount as stated herein above and shall provide all the receipts of the deposits to the respondent No.1/complainant;

v. The judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Phaltan convicting the revision

Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4 9-REVN-145-2018.doc

applicant for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as well as the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2018 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2012 dismissing the said appeal are set aside and the revision applicant is acquitted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;

vi. Criminal Revision Application No.145 of 2018 and

Criminal Application No.168 of 2018 are disposed off

accordingly.

                                              (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)




Sajakali Jamadar                    4 of 4