Bombay High Court
Raju Sheshrao Jangle vs Vijay Karbhari Zalte on 21 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:2006
(1) 941 cri wp 2033.245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2024
Raju Sheshrao Jangle
Aged 45 years, Occu.Business
R/o Nakib Chincholi, Tq. Fulambri,
Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
(Aurangabad). ... PETITIONER
V/s.
Vijay Karbhari Zalte
Aged 31 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Pundlik Nagar, Lane no.10
Plot no.99, Garkheda Parisar,
Dist. Chatrapati Sambhajinagar.
(Aurangabad). ... RESPONDENT
.....
Mr. Patil Nileshsingh J., Advocate for the Petitioner
.....
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 21.01.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of both sides at the admission stage.
2. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner challenges the order
dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, below
Exhibit-4 in Criminal Appeal No. 226/2024.
(2) 941 cri wp 2033.245
3. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the
sides, I have gone through the petition paper book. It is not in dispute that the
Respondent has filed a Summary Criminal Case No.5323/2020 before the
learned JMFC and prayed for awarding punishment to the Petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act because the cheque which
was issued by the Petitioner came to be dishonoured. After a full-fledged trial,
on 24.09.2024, the learned JMFC passed the judgment and held the Petitioner
guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. The
Petitioner was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs.
6,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine the Petitioner/Accused is required to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
4. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction, the present
Petitioner/Accused filed Criminal Appeal No.226/2024 before the Sessions
Court, Aurangabad and challenged his conviction. The Petitioner also filed
Exh.4 an application for suspension of sentence. On 12.11.2024, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, passed the impugned order,
suspending the sentence on the condition that 20% of the cheque amount be
deposited as compensation under section 143-A of the NI Act before the
learned JMFC within one month from the date of the order. The Petitioner was
also directed to furnish a P.B. of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety of the same
amount.
(3) 941 cri wp 2033.245
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that
while passing the order of suspension of sentence, the learned Appellate Court
failed to consider that Section 143-A of the NI Act is discretionary, not
mandatory. Therefore, impugned order is illegal, bad in law, hence prayed for
quashing and setting aside the same.
6. In support of these submissions the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner relied on the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava V/s. State of
Jharkhand & Anr., (Criminal Appeal No.741/2024), wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued guidelines while exercising the powers under Section
143A of the N.I. Act which reads as under:
"19. ....
c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A
are as follows:
i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made
out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused
in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also
be a consideration.
ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the
complainant makes out a prima facie case.
iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the
Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim
compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim
compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider
several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any,
between the accused and the complainant, etc.
(4) 941 cri wp 2033.245
v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a
given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated
above are not exhaustive."
7. In the case in hand, the Petitioner/Accused has not disputed that
he has been held guilty after conclusion of full-fledged trial. As per guideline
'C' outlined in para 19 of cited case, the Court is required to evaluate merit of
the case made out by the Complainant and the plausible defence of the accused
who is facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 143A of the N.I.
Act. In the present case, it prima facie appears that the present
Petitioner/Accused was convicted after the conclusion of a full-fledged trial,
during which he was given an opportunity to defend the charge. The Petitioner
has approached before the Appellate Court challenging his conviction and
prayed for suspension of sentence. On 12.11.2024, the learned First Appellate
Court passed the impugned order and suspended sentence of the
Petitioner/Accused on deposit of 20% of the cheque amount as compensation
before the trial Court which does not appear to be illegal, bad in law.
8. Therefore, I do not find that the Petitioner has made out
substantial grounds to interfere with the findings. Hence the Petition is
dismissed. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
mub
