Radheshyam Dattarao Bhoje vs Shailesh Tukaram Damble
2025 Latest Caselaw 1658 Bom

Bombay High Court

Radheshyam Dattarao Bhoje vs Shailesh Tukaram Damble on 17 January, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:589


                                                                18.revn.192.2024.Judgmenrt.odt
                                                     (1)

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2024

                          Radhshyam Dattarao Bhoje,
                          Aged about 60 Years,
                          Occupation : Service,
                          R/o. Injigo Colony,
                          Gandhi Nagar, Pusad,
                          Taluka Pusad, District Yavatmal.       ..... APPLICANT

                                              // VERSUS //

                          Shailesh Tukaram Damble,
                          Aged about 62 Years,
                          Occupation : Retired,
                          R/o. Mahadeo Mandir,
                          Subhash Ward, Pusad,
                          Taluka Pusad, District Yavatmal.   .... NON-APPLICANT

                   ----------------------------------------
                       Mr. R. S. Kurekar, Counsel for Applicant.
                       Mr. Amol Deshpande, Counsel for the Non-applicant.
                   ----------------------------------------

                                           CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE,                    J.
                                           DATED : 17.01.2025

                   ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. By preferring this revision, applicant has challenged

the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Pusad, District Yavatmal, rejecting the application for seeking

permission to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/- before it and

issued the non-bailable warrant against the present applicant.

2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant

that the present applicant has preferred an appeal against the

Judgment and order of sentence passed in Summary Criminal Case

18.revn.192.2024.Judgmenrt.odt

No.214/2023 dated 20.02.2024 thereby convicted the applicant to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months and also

directing him to pay compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.

to the tune of Rs.4,00,000 in 4 equal installment of each within two

months from the date of order. In default, shall suffer simple

imprisonment.

3. While suspending the sentence, the learned trial Court

directed to deposit Rs.80,000/- within the period of ten days. The

applicant had already deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/-, but he

could not deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/- during the stipulated

period and subsequently, he filed an application before the

Appellate Court for seeking permission to deposit the amount which

was rejected and non-bailable warrant was issued. During the

pendency of this application, the applicant has already deposited

the amount of Rs.60,000/- before this Court. Considering this fact,

the non-applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount which is

deposited by the present applicant and non-bailable warrant issued

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal,

is hereby cancelled in the above terms.

4. The revision application is disposed of.

(URMIL A JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Sarkate.

Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/01/2025 19:21:13