Bombay High Court
Rajendra Hiralal Kucheriya vs Shyam Construction And Ors on 12 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
024:BHC-AS:2
Diksha Rane 3. ia 143619.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1436/2020
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.77/2019
RAJENDRA HIRALAL KUCHERIYA ..APPLICANT
VS.
SHYAM CONSTRUCTION THR BANWARI
SHRI YADAV SINCE DECEASED THR LEGAL
HEIRS GAURI BANWARI YADAV & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Pritam P. Runwal a/w. Adv. Anil B. Khopade for the
applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2024.
P.C. :
1. On 13/1/2015, the applicant was convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six
months and further ordered to pay Rs.14 lakhs as
compensation to the complainant. The order was confirmed
in appeal by the Appellate Court. The Criminal Revision
Application bearing No.77/2019 was filed in this Court. The
said revision application was settled and the consent terms
were tendered. By an order dated 25/11/2020, this Court
Diksha Rane 3. ia 143619.doc
disposed of the Criminal Revision Application No.77/2019. In
paragraph 7, this Court directed that in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.1, the petitioner
shall deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four
weeks from 25/11/2020.
2. The present application is made to modify and relax
the condition imposed to deposit 15% of the cheque
amount. The reason stated is that there are some crucial
factors which could not be brought to the notice of this
Court when the order came to be passed. It is submitted
that the applicant was facing great hardship and difficulty
due to covid-19 pandemic situation and with great difficulty
had arranged for the settlement amount. My attention is
invited by learned counsel for the applicant to paragraph 17
of the decision of the Supreme Court in Damodar Prabhu
(supra). It is further pointed out that in respect of the co-
accused Sankalp Enterprises also where the allegation
pertained to cheating the complainant, this Court while
quashing the process has not imposed any cost.
1 (2010) 5 SCC 663
Diksha Rane 3. ia 143619.doc
3. Learned counsel for the applicant nonetheless
submitted that to show his bonafides, the applicant would
graciously deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period
of four weeks from today.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP for the
State. It is submitted that the order passed by this Court is
in terms of what has been held by the Supreme Court.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I
am inclined to modify the paragraph 7 of the order dated
25/11/2020 in the Criminal Revision Application No.77/2019
to the effect that instead of 15% of the cheque amount the
applicant is permitted to deposit 5% of the cheque amount
with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a
period of four weeks from today.
6. The application is partly allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2024 18:38:48
