[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vishal Shyam Gurnani vs State Of Maharashtra Amd Anr on 20 May, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:22689
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.10074 OF 2026
Vishal Shyam Gurnani )... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. )... Respondents
-----
Mr. Santosh Budhwani a/w Adv. Shahbaz Pathan i/b Mr. H.K. Sharma
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, AP.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Asmeeta Bhoir for Respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
DATE : 20th MAY 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :
1) The Petitioner is accused No.5 in Criminal Case No.4585/SS
of 2016. That criminal case resulted in conviction of the Petitioner.
The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, had passed the following
Order.
"Order
1. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby convicted for the offence
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act vide Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and accused Nos.2 to 5 are sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One) year.
2. The accused nos.1 to 5 are hereby directed to pay
compensation of 1.5 times of the cheques amount i.e. Exhibit 13
and 15 with interest 9 % per annum to the complainant as per
Sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the
date of issue of cheques.
3. The present bail bonds of the accused are cancelled.
4. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
5. Copy of the judgment be sent to the accused free of costs.
Dictated in open Court."
2) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and
Order passed by the learned JMFC, the Petitioner preferred Appeal
before the learned Sessions Judge. The Petitioner had taken out an
application for suspension of sentence passed by the learned JMFC. The
learned Sessions Judge, while deciding Criminal M.A. No.2876 of
2025, had suspended sentence passed by the learned JMFC till decision
of appeal subject deposit of amount of 20 per cent from the total
amount awarded by the learned trial court within 60 days. The deposit
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
was to be made in the trial court.
3) The Petitioner was not the only Appellant and that there were
three different M.As. for suspension of the sentence by the other two
accused. One such M.A. was Criminal M.A. No.2875 of 2025 and other
being Criminal M.A. No.2877 of 2025. In all these cases, the Criminal
Application was allowed, subject to deposit of 20 per cent of the
amount.
4) Mr. Budhwani, the learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had delayed in paying the said
amount and therefore, the Petitioner had preferred Application before
the learned Sessions Court for the purpose of allowing him time to pay
the said amount. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the
sides had dismissed the application. This is why the present writ
petition is filed. The reasons given by the Petitioner was that he was in
financial constraints. The Petitioner was seeking an extension of only
two weeks.
5) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had stated
that the period of two weeks' extension ought to have been granted.
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
I was inclined to grant two weeks time to the learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner. However, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner advanced one more submission. He stated that there were
three different Criminal Applications filed by three accused, namely,
M.A. No.2875 of 2025, M.A. No.2876 of 2025 and M.A. No.2877 of
2025. He submits that he is ready to pay 20 per cent of the amount,
however, the amount should not be 60 per cent in all the three M.As.,
but it should be 20 per cent cumilatively for all the three M.As., taken
together. The reason given by him is that the Hon'ble Apex Court had
held that there cannot be a deposit of 20 per cent in totality.
6) It is pertinent to note that when the Application was filed
before the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of extension of time,
the prayer was to deposit 20 per cent of the amount. In the said
Application, which is at page 'F', the Applicant, i.e. the Petitioner
herein had not raised any such contention about 20 per cent of the
amount cumilatively. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant had
accepted all the three Orders in M.A. No.2876 of 2025 and that he had
not challenged the said amount. If at all his contention is to be heard
that amount of 20 per cent should be considered cumulatively in M.A.
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
Nos.2875, 2876 and 2877 of 2025, then it amounts to not accepting
the Order dated 30th December 2025, passed in Criminal M.A. No.2876
of 2025. In such event, it was incumbent upon the Applicant to have
challenge the said condition of imposing of 20 per cent of the amount
each. It is settled position of law that the Order has to be interpreted
as it is and it is not permissible for the Petitioner to interpret the Order
according to his desire.
7) Assuming for argument that the Order is wrong, it is settled
position of law, that the Petitioner cannot say that he would not comply
with the orders by branding the Order as a wrong order. Even a wrong
order also requires same obedience, till it is set aside, modified or
reversed by higher authority. In this case, for the first time, a
completely new case has been made out that the Petitioner is seeking
an extension to deposit 20 per cent of the total amount, cumulatively,
in M.A. No.2875, 2876 and 2877 of 2025. This cannot be countenanced
at all.
8) As indicated above, had it been a case where the Applicant
was accepting the Order dated 30 th December 2025 and has applied
31. WPST 10074-2026.doc
only for the purpose of extension, then the scenario would have been
different. However, since the Applicant is now quarreling with the
position as to what would be 20 per cent, this is not a fit case for
entertaining the Petition.
9) Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.05.22
19:58:23 +0530
