Bombay High Court
Sachin Sitaram Sajekar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 October, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 9.revn-50-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2023
[Sachin Vs. State]
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders.
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. Trupen Rathod, Advocate a/w. Rohit Pandey i/b.
Arsh Misra, for Applicant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Anil P. Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent
No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 19th OCTOBER, 2023
P.C.:
1. The Applicant is the original accused in S.T.C.
No.3406/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Panvel. The learned Magistrate vide his judgment and order
dated 25.9.2019 convicted the Applicant for commission of
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer SI for three
months and to pay fine of Rs.41 Lakhs and in default to suffer
SI for one month. The Respondent No.2 herein was the
original complainant who had lodged that prosecution for
dishonor of two cheques dated 16.6.2016 drawn on Bank of
India, Pali for Rs.20 Lakhs each.
2. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence
was challenged by the Applicant in Criminal Appeal
No.509/2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel.
Said Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 18.1.2023.
3. Therefore, the Applicant has preferred present Criminal
Revision Application. The Revision Application is yet to be
1/3
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 03:02:51 :::
2 9.revn-50-23
admitted. In the meantime, the Applicant had made a
statement that he would deposit Rs.8 Lakhs; and on that
ground the sentence was suspended. However, he did not
deposit that amount as directed by the Court and, therefore, the
order of suspension of the sentence which was a conditional
order operated by itself and suspension of sentence was
vacated.
4. However, today the Respondent No.2 i.e. the original
complainant has tendered an affidavit before the Court
mentioning that the matter is settled between the parties. Said
affidavit is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. It
is mentioned that the Applicant had deposited Rs.8 Lakhs
before the Sessions Court, Panvel and it has been withdrawn
by the Respondent No.2. It is further mentioned that Rs.5
Lakhs have been paid to the Respondent No.2 till 17.10.2023
by the Applicant. As per the settlement terms, now the
outstanding amount is Rs.26 Lakhs. As per the settlement
deed the balance amount was to be paid before 30.1.2024 or
else the land would be transferred in the name of the
Respondent No.2.
5. Both learned counsel for the parties submitted that the
Revision Application be kept pending for admission. However,
the Court can consider suspending the sentence imposed on the
Applicant. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that till
the next date the sentence imposed on the Applicant can be
suspended. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and
he is instructing his Counsel appearing for him today.
6. Considering this situation, today I am adjourning the
matter and also suspending the sentence of the Applicant till
the next date date.
2/3
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 03:02:51 :::
3 9.revn-50-23
7. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. Stand over to 7.2.2024.
ii. By way of interim relief, the substantive sentence
imposed on the Applicant is suspended till the next date
i.e. 7.2.2024.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
