Bombay High Court
Shirish Bachubhai Thakor vs Suresh K Shah on 23 October, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 [email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3840 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3841 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2023
Shirish Bachubhai Thakor .... Applicant
versus
Suresh K. Shah & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja i/b. Arshad Khan, Advocate for
Applicant.
• Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2023
P.C. :
1. The Applicant was the original accused in CC
No.741/SS/2013 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71 st Court,
Sewree/Mazgaon, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate vide his
Judgment and Order dated 08/01/2014 convicted the Applicant
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2023 23:14:59 :::
2/4 [email protected]
for commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month. In addition, the Applicant was
directed to pay compensation of Rs.7 lakhs, which included the
cheque amount of Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as cost of
litigation with interest of 9% per annum from the date of
complaint till actual realization of the amount. In default, he was
sentenced to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The Applicant challenged that order by way of Criminal
Appeal No.374 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Mumbai. The learned Appellate Judge vide his
Judgment and Order dated 31/08/2023 dismissed the Appeal.
3. The prosecution case is that on request of the
Applicant, the complainant gave him loan of Rs.6,80,000/-
against the post-dated cheque dated 31/01/2013 drawn on
Vaishya Sahakari Bank Limited, Girgaon, Mumbai. The cheque
was dishonoured and therefore the prosecution was launched
after completing the statutory requirements.
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2023 23:14:59 :::
3/4 [email protected]
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant made some
submissions on the merits of the matter. However, his emphasis
today was that the Applicant has already deposited 20% of the
compensation amount during pendency of the Appeal. Thus, he
has already deposited Rs.1,40,000/-. He further submitted that
the Applicant is willing to deposit the entire amount and settle
the matter. However, at present he is willing to deposit
Rs.3,50,000/- more, immediately before the Trial Court. That
would cover around 70% of the compensation amount. That
would show his bonafides. He further submitted that the
Applicant has no objection if the deposited amount is withdrawn
by the Respondent No.1 complainant on his executing an
undertaking that such withdrawal would be subject to outcome
of the present Revision Application.
5. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear
the other side. The submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Applicant are quite reasonable and they show the bonafide
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2023 23:14:59 :::
4/4 [email protected]
intention of the Applicant. Therefore till the next date, the
Applicant can be protected by way of suspension of sentence.
6. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Issue notice to the Respondent No.1 returnable
on 24/01/2024.
(ii) The Applicant is permitted to deposit
Rs.3,50,000/- before the Trial Court, within a
period of six weeks from today.
(iii) Till 24/01/2024, the substantive sentence
imposed on the Applicant, shall be suspended by
way of ad-interim relief.
(iv) Stand over to 24/01/2024.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
