Bombay High Court
New Generic Drug House Ltd And Anr vs Stae Of Maharashtra And Anr on 1 November, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:32969
Gokhale 1 of 5 9-revn-365-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2023
New Generic Drug House Ltd. & Anr. ..Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4017 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4018 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2023
__________
Mr. Sahil Mahajan for Applicants.
Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. Benny Joseph a/w. Ananya Bansode a/w. Pallavi Kamath i/b.
BJ Law Offices LLP for Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 1 NOVEMBER 2023
PC :
1. The Applicants were the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in
Case No.1349/SS/2005 (Old Case No.2348/M/1999) before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. The
prosecution case was a result of complaint filed by the Respondent
No.2 herein. The complainant company had supplied Ethyl Thio
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:59 :::
2 of 5 9-revn-365-23
Ethanol to the applicant No.1 company, in the year 1999. In
payment for that supply, the applicant No.1 company issued three
cheques totalling Rs.17,61,760/-. The Applicant No.2 was the
Managing Director and the Signatory of those cheques. Those
cheques were dishonoured and, therefore, the prosecution was
launched.
2. In the meantime, the complainant also filed Summary
Suit No.3356 of 2000 before this Court on the original side for
claiming compensation in respect of the same transaction. In that
suit, the consent terms were entered into and the accused No.1
company agreed to pay sum of Rs.57,35,370/-. According to the
complaint, the accused paid only Rs.42 lakhs and did not comply
with the consent terms. At the conclusion of trial, learned
Magistrate took into consideration the earlier payment made.
There was another matter for dishonour of different cheques
between the same parties, wherein, both these applicants were the
accused. Taking into consideration all this background, the learned
Magistrate convicted the applicants for commission of offence
punishable U/s.138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:59 :::
3 of 5 9-revn-365-23
The Applicant No.2 was sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months.
The applicants were directed to pay compensation of
Rs.14,23,520/- to the Respondent No.2 and in default to suffer S.I.
for three months. This Judgment and order was passed on
22.07.2021. It was challenged before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Mumbai, vide Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2021.
The said Appeal was dismissed on 27.10.2023. Therefore, the
applicants have preferred the present revision application.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that they
have paid more than the amount of cheques in the year 2004 itself
pursuant to the consent terms. He submitted that, once the
consent terms are entered into by the parties, the prosecution
could not have continued. He relied on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gimpex Private Limited
Versus Manoj Goel1. He further submitted that, there was no legal
enforceable liability as the supply was not in accordance with the
agreed terms.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed these
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 925
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:59 :::
4 of 5 9-revn-365-23
submissions. According to him, since the applicants did not comply
with the consent terms, they were not binding on the Respondent
No.2 and, therefore, the ratio of Judgment in Gimpex's case
(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, stated
that, without prejudice to his contentions on merits, the applicants
are ready and willing to deposit Rs.3 lakhs more in this Court
during pendency of the revision application and that the applicants
do not have any objection if the Respondent No.2 is permitted to
withdraw that amount.
6. Considering the rival submissions, arguable points are
raised and, therefore, the revision application is required to be
admitted. At the same time, the grievance of the complainant is
also justified that the prosecution was pending for many years. In
that view, the voluntary offer made by the applicants of deposit of
Rs.3 lakhs can be taken into consideration for releasing the
applicant No.2 on bail; during the pendency of the revision
application.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:59 :::
5 of 5 9-revn-365-23
7. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Application No.365 of
2023 is admitted.
ii) Call Record and proceedings.
iii) The Applicants are permitted to deposit
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) in this
Court.
iv) On deposit of Rs.3 lakhs, the Applicant No.2 shall
be released on bail on his executing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.25000/- during pendency and final
disposal of the Revision Application.
v) The Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw
the said amount of Rs.3 lakhs, if deposited by the
Applicants in this Court.
vi) The hearing of the revision application is
expedited.
vii) Both the interim applications are disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
