Bombay High Court
Yashwant Uttamlal Jaiswal vs Ravindra Govind Jaiswal And Anr on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Amit Borkar
Y.S.Patil
1
37-WP-3645-2022(1).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3645 OF 2022
Yashwant Uttamlal Jaiswal ... Petitioner
Vs
Ravindra Govind Jaiswal and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rahul Arote for the Petitioner.
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
Mr. Amit Date a/w Ms. Anjali Thakoor i/b Satishkumar
PATIL
Digitally signed by
Chettiyar for Respondent No.1.
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL
Date: 2022.11.29
Mr. A.D. Kamkhedkar APP for Respondent/State.
11:53:57 +0530
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : 25th NOVEMBER, 2022
P.C.:
1. The subject matter of the Petition is dismissal of Revision
Application against an order of issuance of warrant for recovery
of an amount of compensation.
2. Learned Magistrate by Judgment and order dated 15 th
June 2016, had convicted the Petitioner for offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and imposed
fine of Rs.9,05,000/-. The said order attained finally.
3. In a connected proceeding filed by same complainant
bearing SCC No.1881 of 2012, the Petitioner was convicted and
Y.S.Patil
37-WP-3645-2022(1).odt
directed to pay fine of Rs.11,25,000/-. Aggrieved thereby,
Petitioner filed Appeal No.132 of 2016. As required under
Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Petitioner
deposited amount of Rs.2,24,000/-, which was withdrawn by
the complainant. By Judgment and order dated 1 st August
2019, Appeal No.132 of 2016 was allowed. The complainant
had challenged the decision by way of Appeal against acquittal.
4. In a proceeding filed by the complainant for recovery of
fine amount imposed in SCC No. 1881 of 2012, the accused
requested the Magistrate to appropriate the amount of
Rs.2,24,000/- deposited under Section 148 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2016 filed
by the petitioner. Both the Courts below have rejected the
request and issued warrant for recovery of remaining fine
amount.
5. Learned Revisional Court rejected Revision holding that
both proceedings are distinct in nature and, therefore, issuance
of warrant against the Petitioner was legal and proper.
6. On overall perusal of the material on record, it appears
that the Petitioner was entitled to receive the amount of
Rs.2,24,000/- deposited in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2016.
On conviction being set aside by the Appellate Court, the right
to receive amount of Rs.2,24,000/- at prevalent bank rate is a
Y.S.Patil
37-WP-3645-2022(1).odt
statutory right conferred on the Petitioner under Section 148 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Petitioner intended to
waive said statutory right to get reimbursement and requested
the trial Court to appropriate said amount. It was therefore
necessary in the interest of justice for the Courts to appropriate
said amount towards the fine amount imposed in SCC No. 1881
of 2012. Ultimately complainant in both the cases is the same
person. Therefore, in my opinion, the request made by the
accused to appropriate the amount of Rs.2,24,000/- in Criminal
Appeal No. 132 of 2016 needs to be appropriated towards the
fine imposed in SCC No. 1881 of 2012.
7. Learned Magistrate shall appropriate amount deposited in
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2016, as required under Section
148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, towards the fine
imposed in SCC No. 1881 of 2012 and if there is any balance,
the same shall be repaid to the Petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Order dated 15th June 2022, passed by
Judicial Magistrate, First Class below Exhibit No. 1 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 299 of 2019 is quashed and set
aside.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
