Bombay High Court
Sharayu Synthetic Processors And ... vs Ehsan Julaha, Proprietor Of ... on 5 September, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 15.REVN-286-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2023
[Sharayu Vs. Ehsan]
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3230 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3228 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2023
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders.
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. B.D. Chauhan, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Ehsan Ahmed Julaha, The Respondent No.1 is
present in person.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 05th SEPTEMBER, 2023
P.C.:
1. The Applicants were the original accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C. No.0601837/SS/2017 before the Metropolitan Magistrate,
6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The Applicants were convicted
vide judgment and order dated 13.3.2020 for commission of
the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. They were sentenced to suffer SI
for three months each. They were directed to pay
compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- to the complainant (the
Respondent No.1 herein) and in default to suffer SI for three
months each.
1/3
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2023 05:09:25 :::
2 15.REVN-286-23
2. The Applicants challenged that order before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai vide Criminal
Appeal No.302/2021. That Appeal was dismissed vide order
dated 24.7.2023 and hence the Applicants have preferred the
present Revision Application.
3. The subject matters of the trial were the cheques of the
total amount for Rs.9,46,132/-. These cheques were given as
part payment in respect of the transaction regarding purchase
of imported coal. The cheques were dishonored and the
Applicants faced the trial. They were convicted as mentioned
earlier.
4. The complainant-Respondent No.1 appears in person
today and seeks an adjournment to engage an Advocate. At
his request, today I am adjourning the matter. However,
considering that the Applicants are likely to be arrested and
since the Applicant No.2 is 80 years old person, I have
considered grant of ad-interim relief to the Applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that
during pendency of the Appeal before the Sessions Court, the
Applicants have deposited Rs.2,30,000/-. He submitted that the
Applicants are voluntarily willing to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-
more in the trial Court. He further submitted that the
Applicants do not have any objection if the Respondent No.1-
complainant withdraws said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the
trial Court on executing an undertaking in the form of an
affidavit that such withdrawal would be subject to the final
outcome of the present Revision Application.
6. Considering this bonafide suggestion given by learned
counsel for the Applicants, today I am inclined to protect the
Applicants by way of ad-interim relief. Hence, the following
2/3
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2023 05:09:25 :::
3 15.REVN-286-23
order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 5.12.2023. By
then, the Respondent No.1 who is appearing in person can
make arrangement to engage an Advocate.
ii. The Applicants are permitted to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) in the trial Court within a
period of four weeks from today. The Respondent No.1-
complainant is permitted to withdraw the said amount on his
executing and submitting an affidavit-cum-undertaking that
such withdrawal would be subject to the final outcome of this
Revision Application.
iii. The sentence imposed on the Applicants is suspended by way
of ad-interim relief till the next date.
iv. Stand over to 5.12.2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
