Bombay High Court
Manoj Ghansham Birla vs Rajkumar Ganpati Manudhane Since ... on 9 May, 2022
Bench: S. G. Mehare
{1}
crapln 1674.22 sr. 903..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1674/2022 IN REVN/162/2022
MANOJ GHANSHAM BIRLA
VERSUS
RAJKUMAR GANPATI MANUDHANE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
LEGAL HEIRS 1A) MEENA RAJKUMARMANUDHANE AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Rashmi S Kulkarni
APP for Respondent No.2: Mr. S.J. Salgare.
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 9TH MAY, 2022 (VACATION COURT)
PER COURT:
1] Heard.
2] Issue notice to respondents returnable on 13th June, 2022.
3] The learned counsel for applicant would submit that there
was a transaction of hand loan between the petitioner and the
respondent/complainant. In fact, the loan transaction was barred by
limitation. However, the complainant has misused the cheque which was
given to him as a security. The complainant has altered the date on the
cheque and brought it within limitation.
2] The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that
Rs.80,000/- by way of separate payment was paid to the complainant.
However, he has misused the cheque which was given as a security. The
present applicant has sanguine chances of success in the revision. He has
not misused the liberty granted by way of bail. He has roots in Jalgaon
and therefore, there are no chances of his abscondance.
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2022 08:54:30 :::
{2}
crapln 1674.22 sr. 903..odt
3] Perused the impugned judgment and order. The petitioner
has been held guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The courts below have accepted the contentions of the
complainant and directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 5
Lakhs to the complainant within two months. The statement has been
made by the learned counsel for the petitoner that an amount of Rs.
1,25,000/- has been deposited before the trial court. The maximum
imprisonment for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is two years.
Therefore, this court can exercise discretionary powers under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. The defence appears probable. However, in view of Rule 5 of
Chapter 1 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, this court
cannot grant relief by way of final order. But, since a case is made out
for interim relief till the regular court functions in due course, this court
passes the following order :-
:ORDER:
[a] The execution, implementation and effect of sentence imposed
against the applicant/revision petitioner by the courts below is
temporarily suspended till the reopening of the courts.
[b] The applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.
[c] Bail bonds be furnished before the appellate court.
[d] Applicant be released on bail after depositing remaining 25% of
the total amount of compensation before this Court within a period of
two weeks from today.
[e] Hamdast allowed.
[S.G. MEHARE]
JUDGE.
grt/-
