Bombay High Court
Jyoti Ramesh Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
15-WP(ST)-1298-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION(ST) NO. 1298 OF 2024
Jyoti Ramesh Joshi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey a/w Mr. Anil Pandey, Akash Sonawale
i/by Savj Law Solutions Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2024
P.C.:-
1. The petitioner along with other accused were tried for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The
petitioner being tried as partner of accused No.1. Vide judgment and order
dated 29th November 2022 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7 th
Court, Dadar, Mumbai the accused were convicted for offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused No.2 to 4 were
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The accused No.1
to 4 were directed to jointly and severally pay compensation of
Rs.32,75,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of said
compensation amount, they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment
for six months.
15-WP(ST)-1298-2024.doc
2. The Petitioner/applicant challenged the Judgment of conviction by
preferring Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2023 before the Court of Sessions.
The petitioner/applicant also preferred application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of Appeal. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai vide order dated 30 th March
2023 allowed the application. The substantive sentence imposed by
learned Magistrate in C.C. No.146/SS/2016 vide judgment and order dated
29th November 2022 was suspended till disposal of the appeal, subject to
condition that, the accused shall jointly and severally deposit 25% of the
amount of Rs.32,75,000/- toward the compensation within one month.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner/applicant had deposited the
amount of Rs.2,73,000/-. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 were also tried as
partners of accused No.1 preferring separate appeal challenging the
judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court. The said accused also
preferred application for suspension of sentence. The learned Sessions
Judge has allowed the application for suspension of sentence preferred by
said accused subject to condition that, they shall deposit 25% of the amount
of compensation. Pursuant to the said order, those accused had deposited
the amount of Rs.8,37,400/-. Subsequently, the complainant had preferred
application before the Appellate Court contending that, the
petitioner/applicant is required to deposit 25% of the amount jointly as
15-WP(ST)-1298-2024.doc
aforesaid. Apparently, the accused has not preferred any Appeal
challenging the judgment of conviction. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge vide order dated 4th January 2024 allowed the application preferred
by complainant on the ground that, the petitioner/applicant had deposited
only the amount of Rs.2,73,000/- and this amount is not 25% of the
amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. Thus, the applicant has not complied the order
dated 30th March 2023. The learned Judge vacated the order of suspension
of sentence and issued non-bailable warrant against applicant.
3. Learned Advocate for applicant submitted that, the accused was
supposed to deposit the amount jointly and severally and in accordance
with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner had
severally deposited the amount of Rs.2,73,000/-. It is further submitted
that, the calculation arrived at by the complainant and accepted by the
Appellate court is erroneous. The order suspending the sentence passed by
the Sessions Court also refers to the fact that the accused are required to be
deposit amount of 25% of the compensation jointly and severally.
4. Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 6th March 2024.
5. In the meantime, the operation of impugned order dated 4 th January
2024 is stayed till next date of hearing.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
