Asha Mahendra Bhuta vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4731 Bom

                                                                                    24-revn-273-2022.doc




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2016
                        1. M/s. Raj Novelties
                        & Anr.                                  ...Applicants
                             Vs.
SHRADDHA                1. The State of Maharashtra
KAMLESH                 & Anr.                                  ... Respondents
TALEKAR
Digitally signed by
                                                    WITH
SHRADDHA
KAMLESH TALEKAR                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2022
                                                     IN
Date: 2022.05.05
19:23:52 +0530


                                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2016

                        Mrs.Asha Mahendra Bhuta                       ...Applicant
                                                                (Orig. Respondent No.2)
                             Vs.
                        1. The State of Maharashtra
                        & Anr.                                  ... Respondents
                                                                (Orig. Applicant)

                                                         ****
                        Mr.Imtiyaz I. Patel for applicant.
                        Mr.A.R. Patil, APP for respondent No.1-State.
                        Mr.Zoher Tahirali Shaikh Sailawala-respondent No.2 present in-
                        person.

                                           CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 4th MAY, 2022 P.C.:

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2022

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Zoher

Sailawala, the respondent No.2 in-person-revision

applicant/accused.

2. The original respondent No.2-complainant has preferred this

Shraddha Talekar, PS 1/3 24-revn-273-2022.doc

application seeking permission to withdraw the amount of

Rs.1,45,000/- deposited by the revision applicant-accused,

pursuant to the judgment and order dated 3 rd August 2012,

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44 th Court,

Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No.24/SS/2008, whereby the accused

came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer

simple imprisonment for three months and pay fne of

Rs.2,25,000/-. The learned Magistrate further directed that out

of the said amount of fne, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- be paid to the

complainant.

3. The appeal preferred by the revision applicant/accused

being Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2012 came to be dismissed by

order, dated 17th December 2015.

4. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the revision

applicant/accused has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in

addition to the amount of Rs.45,000/- deposited before the

learned Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.

5. On the previous date, the revision applicant was present in-

person and sought time as his counsel was not available. Today

also, the applicant seeks further time on the same ground.

Shraddha Talekar, PS                                                                         2/3
                                                                        24-revn-273-2022.doc

6. Since the learned Magistrate had passed the order to pay

fne on 3rd August 2012, in a complaint which was fled in the year

2008, there is no justifable reason to deprive the complainant

from realising part of the amount of compensation ordered to be

paid by the learned Magistrate.

7. Hence, the application stands allowed.

8. The amount of Rs.1,45,000/- deposited by the revision

applicant/accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai be permitted to be withdrawn by the

original complainant-respondent No.2, subject to furnishing an

undertaking that the original complainant-respondent No.2 shall

bring back the said amount, in the event, the revision application

is decided against the original complainant/respondent No.2 and

it is held that the original complainant/respondent No.2 is not

entitled to get the compensation. Such an undertaking be

furnished before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44 th Court,

Andheri, Mumbai, within a period of three weeks.

9. The Interim Application stands disposed.

                                                       (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)




Shraddha Talekar, PS                                                                  3/3