Bombay High Court
New Generic Drug House Ltd And Anr vs State Of Maharshtra And Anr on 1 November, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:32967
Gokhale 1 of 5 7-revn-364-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2023
New Generic Drug House Ltd. & Anr. ..Applicants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4016 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4015 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 364 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.1156/SS/2005 (Old Case No.2474/SS/1999) before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. The
complaint was filed by the Respondent No.2 herein. It is the case
of the complainant that, his company supplied Ethyl Thio Ethanol
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:52 :::
2 of 5 7-revn-364-23
to the applicant No.1 company, in the year 1999 under different
invoices. The Applicant No.2 was the Managing Director and
Signatory of the cheques in question. In discharge of the liability to
make payment for this transaction, the applicant No.1 company
issued two cheques dated 13.10.1999 and 18.10.1999 for total
amount of Rs.17,59,784/-. Those cheques were dishonoured. This
is the subject matter of the prosecution.
2. In the meantime, the complainant had preferred
Summary Suit No.3356 of 2000 before this Court on the original
side claiming compensation in respect of the same transaction. In
that suit, the consent terms were executed and the accused agreed
to pay sum of Rs.57,35,370/-. From the record, according to the
complaint, the accused paid only Rs.42 lakhs and did not comply
with the consent terms. The trial before the learned Magistrate
proceeded. He observed that the accused deserve to be convicted
and sentenced. He considered that the compensation would be
twice the amount of the cheques which came to Rs.35,19,568/- .
There was another prosecution for dishonour of other cheques.
After adjusting the proportionate amount which was already paid
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:52 :::
3 of 5 7-revn-364-23
the balanced compensation was fixed at Rs.14,19,568/-. The
learned Magistrate convicted the applicants for commission of
offence punishable U/s.138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The Applicant No.2 was sentenced to suffer S.I. for six
months. The applicants were directed to pay the aforesaid amount
of the compensation i.e. Rs.14,19,568/- and in default to suffer S.I.
for three months.
3. The Applicants challenged that order before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, vide Criminal Appeal
No.249 of 2021. That Appeal was dismissed on 27.10.2023.
Hence, the applicants have preferred the present revision
application. In the meantime, the applicant No.2 is taken in
custody. As of today, he is in custody.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the
applicants have paid more than the amount of cheques in the year
2004 itself. He further submitted that, once the consent terms are
entered into, the prosecution was not maintainable. He relied on
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gimpex
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:52 :::
4 of 5 7-revn-364-23
Private Limited Versus Manoj Goel1. He further submitted that,
apart from the merits of the case, without prejudice to his
contentions, the applicant is willing to deposit Rs.3 lakhs more. He
further submitted that the applicants will have no objection if the
Respondent No.2 withdraws that amount.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposed these
submissions. According to him, the ratio in Gimpex's case (supra)
was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further
submitted that the prosecution was dragged for many years since
1999.
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.
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 925
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2023 10:37:52 :::
5 of 5 7-revn-364-23
7. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Application No.364 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
hearing 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.)
