M/S. Decible It Solutiuons Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17382 Guj

    R/CR.RA/372/2021                             IA ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR
  WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT) NO. 2 of 2021
                               In
      R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 372 of 2021
======================================================

BHAVIKKUMAR GANDALAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================================== Appearance:

for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR RAKESH R PATEL for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR MANISH S SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ====================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

Date : 17/11/2021

IA ORDER

[1.0.] Heard learned advocates for the appearing parties.

[2.0.] This application is filed by the applicant - original complainant, who filed a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the present respondent - accused herein.

[3.0.] The respondent - accused came to be tried and convicted for an offence under 'the Act'. Even appeal against his judgment of conviction and order of sentence has also come to be dismissed. Against the said order, the present revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.372 of 2021 is filed where, the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.2 lakhs out of cheque amount of Rs.5 lakhs. However, while imposing imprisonment, a fine to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- has come to be imposed and complainant is ordered to be paid Rs.7,25,000/- thereof as compensation.

R/CR.RA/372/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 17/11/2021

[4.0.] Pursuant to an order passed by this Court, dated 14.06.2021, Rs. 2 lakhs have come to be deposited by the respondent

- accused before this Court.

[5.0.] Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant submitted that by exercising powers akin to Section 148 of 'the Act', the amount already deposited be ordered to be paid to the applicant - complainant during the pendency of the revision application on a condition mentioned in subsection (3) of Section 148 of 'the Act'.

[6.0.] Mr. H.K. Suthar, learned advocate for Mr. Manish Shah, learned advocate for the respondent - accused has no objection to it, subject to securing his amount which is deposited in case revision application is allowed.

[7.0.] Considering the provisions under 'the Act', the Registry is directed to give the amount deposited to the applicant - original complainant by A/c Payee cheque after ascertaining proper identity on condition that if revision application is allowed and accused is acquitted of the charge, the original complainant shall repay the same to the accused with interest at the prevailing rate as per the RBI's rules within a period of 30 days thereof. The applicant - original complainant is directed to file an undertaking before this Court to that effect within a period of one week hereof.

[8.0.] In view of above, the application stands disposed of.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai