Phiroz Ahammed S/O Abdul Latheif vs Sayed Salman Sattar S/O Karkal Sayed ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2270 Bom

Bombay High Court

Phiroz Ahammed S/O Abdul Latheif vs Sayed Salman Sattar S/O Karkal Sayed ... on 24 January, 2024

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

                                      1 of 2                        28.Revn.544.2022.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.544 OF 2022
                               WITH
            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2022
                               WITH
            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.530 OF 2022

 Phiroz Ahammed Abdul Latheif                                         Applicant
             versus
 Sayed Salman Sattar s/o Karkal Sayed Abdul
 Sattar and another                                                   Respondents

 Ms.Ankita Bamboli with Adv.Omer Farooq, Advocate for Applicant.
 Mr.B.M.Shaikh with Mr.C.S.Lamba for Respondents.
 Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for State.

                               CORAM :         PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                               DATE    :       24th January 2024
 PC :

1. Vide order dated 3rd January 2023 interim relief was granted to the Applicant by suspending sentence. The total amount of compensation is Rs.50 lakh. Applicant had deposited Rs.15 lakh. The balance amount is not deposited. On 9 th January 2024 learned advocate appearing for Applicant on instructions submitted that Applicant would provide demand draft of Rs.10 lakh on 24 th January 2024 and that he would file an undertaking about depositing balance amount. Time was granted to the Applicant. However, it was clarified that in the event demand draft of Rs.10 lakh is not tendered on 24th January 2024 i.e. today, interim relief granted by this Court will be vacated.

2. Learned advocate for Applicant submitted that Applicant may be granted further three weeks time to furnish demand draft of Rs.10

2 of 2 28.Revn.544.2022.doc

lakh and for filing undertaking.

3. Learned Advocate for Respondents opposed the request for granting extension of time. It is submitted that applicant had never remained present in the Court. Applicant is delaying the deposit of amount.

4. Considering the conduct of Applicant, request for extension of time to deposit demand draft of Rs.10 lakh is rejected. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated.

5. Trial Court shall initiate appropriate action in respect to judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by Court.

6. Stand over to 5th March 2024.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST