Bombay High Court
M/S. Rajdevendra Constructions ... vs M/S. D.G. Patil And Company ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
13-ia -689-2013-ia-690-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 689 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2018
M/s. Rajdevendra Constructions Private Limited ...Applicant
Versus
M/s. D.G. Patil And Company Proprietorship
Through Its Proprietor Devidas Gorakh Patil
And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 690 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2018
M/s. Rajdevendra Constructions Private Limited ...Applicant
Versus
M/s. D.G. Patil And Company Properietorship
Through Its Proprietor Devidas Gorakh Patil
And Anr. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Kunal D. Ambulkar, Advocate for the Applicant in Interim
Application.
Mr. Ravi Shinde a/w Mr. Sujay H. Gangal, Advocate for
Respondent/Revision Applicant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent - State.
....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
PER COURT:
Digitally signed
by SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
JAMADAR
LIYAKAT Date: Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 3
JAMADAR 2022.09.13
15:54:29
+0530
13-ia -689-2013-ia-690-2018.doc
1. These interim applications are preferred in Criminal Revision
Application Nos.648 of 2018 and 647 of 2018. The revision
applicant/original accused was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment and fine. The original
accused/revision applicant died during the pendency of revision
application. His legal heirs are brought on record. The revision
applicant had deposited the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in
connection with the proceedings which are subject matter of
revision application No.648 of 2018. The revision applicant had
deposited Rs.4,20,000/- in connection with the proceedings which
are subject matter of Criminal Revision Application No.647 of
2018.
2. The complainant has preferred these interim applications for
withdrawal of the amount deposited by the original accused. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
proceedings are pending since long. Cheques were dishonoured in
the year 2001.
3. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of revision applicant/
accused, submitted that the applicant/complainant may be directed
to execute bank guarantee in the sum of the amount withdrawn by
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 3
13-ia -689-2013-ia-690-2018.doc
him and to give an undertaking that the withdrawal of amount is
subject to the outcome of the revision applications.
4. The complainant can be directed to file undertaking that, the
withdrawal is subject to outcome of revision applications and in the
event judgment of conviction is reversed, he would deposit the
amount withdrawn by him in this Court.
5. Considering the submissions of both sides, I pass the
following order :
ORDER
i. Interim Application Nos. 689 of 2018 and 690 of 2018
are allowed;
ii. The complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount
of Rs.12,50,000/- and 4,20,000/- deposited by revision
applicant before the Court of Sessions at Kolhapur;
iii. The applicant/complainant shall file undertaking
before this Court that the withdrawal of amount shall be
subject to outcome of the revision applications and in the
event the conviction is set aside, complainant would deposit
the withdrawn amount in this Court;
iv. Interim Application Nos. 689 of 2018 and 690 of 2018
are disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3
