M/S. Vardhaman Electrods Pvt Ltd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4917 Bom

                                                                                    41-appr-132-2018.doc




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2018
                                                WITH
                                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2018
                                                 IN
                             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.120 OF 2018

                   M/s. Vardhman Electrods Private Limited and Ors. ...Applicants
                              vs.
VISHAL             The State of Maharashtra and Others              ...Respondents
SUBHASH
PAREKAR            Mr. Shakti Upadhyay h/f. Mr. Mangesh Patel, for the Applicants.
                   Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, for Respondent No. 2.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL          Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2022.05.06
17:47:50 +0530                                   CORAM :   N. J. JAMADAR, J.

                                                 DATE :    MAY 04, 2022

                   P.C.:

                   1.      The      applicants    have   preferred   this   application     being

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2017

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay

in Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2014 whereby the appeal came to be

dismissed and judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 72nd Court, Vikhroli on 9 th May,

2013 came to be affirmed.

2. By the said judgment, the applicants came to be convicted for

the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for

six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,43,565/- with default

Vishal Parekar ...1 41-appr-132-2018.doc

stipulation.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

applicants are ready to deposit the balance 70% of the amount of

compensation ordered to be paid by the learned Magistrate. The

applicants were on bail during the pendency of the trial and appeal.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/ original

complainant invites attention of the Court to the order passed by

this Court on 20th February, 2020, in Criminal Revision Application

No. 121 of 2018 whereby this Court had directed the learned

Magistrate to issue conviction warrant against the applicants

noting that the amount of compensation has not been deposited.

5. Since the applicants have now shown willingness to deposit

the amount of compensation and the applicants were on bail during

the pendency of the trial and appeal, it would be expedient in the

interest of the justice to suspend the sentence subject to deposit of

the amount of compensation, in this Court, within a period of two

weeks.

6. In the meanwhile, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 be released on

bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

7. If the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 failed to deposit the amount

within the aforesaid period, this order would stand vacated without

Vishal Parekar ...2 41-appr-132-2018.doc

further reference to the Court. In that event, the learned Magistrate

shall be at liberty to initiate steps to secure the presence of the

applicant Nos. 2 and 3 so as to commit him to prison to undergo the

sentence.

8. All applications stand disposed of.

9. List on 27th June, 2022 for compliance.

                                              (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)




Vishal Parekar                                                                ...3