Bombay High Court
Devidas Mansing Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 953-CrRn-11-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.11 OF 2023
WITH APPLN/161/2023 IN REVN/11/2023
WITH APPLN/784/2023 IN REVN/11/2023
DEVIDAS MANSING RATHOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ram S. Shinde
APP for Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S. B. Narwade
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prashant V. Gole
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 23-02-2023
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned
A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2/original complainant.
2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the
judgment and order passed by the leaned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Udgir, in SCC No.119 of 2013. Against the judgment and
order of the learned Magistrate, the applicant has preferred
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2019. The judgment and order of
conviction was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1, Udgir. The applicant remained absent at the time of
pronouncement of the judgment. Therefore, the learned Sessions
Judge, instead of issuing warrant of arrest for sending the
2 953-CrRn-11-23.odt
applicant in jail for execution of sentence, directed the learned
Judicial Magistrate to take necessary action. Thereafter, the
applicant was arrested in view of the warrant.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant
opposed the application. He would submit that the applicant was
not obedient. In the morning session, the applicant was present
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but in the second
session, when learned Sessions Court pronounced the judgment,
he had left the court.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant did not leave the court on his own, but his lawyer
appearing in the District Court told him that the judgment may not
be pronounced, hence, asked him to leave the court. To save the
skin, the litigants irresponsibly make such allegations against the
lawyer. It is very common. Hence, in the absence of cogent and
reliable material, the explanation of the accused for his absence at
the time of pronouncement of the judgment is unacceptable.
5. The conclusion of revision may take its time. Considering
the conduct of the applicant, the Court is of the view that, the
discretion under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can
not be exercised blankly, certain conditions shall be imposed.
Hence, the following order :-
i) Criminal Applications Nos. 161 and 784 of 2023 stand
allowed.
3 953-CrRn-11-23.odt
ii) The execution of sentence of imprisonment to suffer SI for
one year imposed against the applicant by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.3), Udgir, in
Summary Criminal Case No. 119 of 2013, dated 14.08.2019,
and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Udgir, vide judgment and order, dated 15.12.2022, in
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2019, is suspended, till the
disposal of the revision, on the condition that the applicant
shall deposit entire compensation amount Rs.2,00,000/-
except the amount which he has deposited in the court,
within a week after his release.
iii) The applicant be released on bail on executing P.B. and S.B.
of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.
iv) Bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Udgir.
v) List the criminal revision application No.11 of 2023 on
06.04.2023.
( S. G. MEHARE )
JUDGE
rrd
