Allowed

Jayesh N. Sonpal v. M/S. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2006REVN/440/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to an appellant in a cheque bouncing case who suffered a paralytic stroke. The court allowed the revision permitting suspension of sentence upon depositing a specified sum in the lower appellate court.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail with fresh bond subject to depositing Rs. 3.5 lakhs in lower appellate court and suspension of sentence.

Jayesh N. Sonpal Vs M/S. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 440 OF 2006 IN
 M/s Jayesh N. Sonpal ... Applicant.
 V/s.
 M/s Pankaj Extrusions Ltd.& ors... Respondents.

¶3

 Shri Jayesh Bhatt for the applicant.

¶4

 Shri Y.M. Nakhwa, AOO for the State

¶5

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶6

DATED: 21.12.2006.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

 . Heard Shri Bhatt appearing for the
 applicant.

¶9

 2. Heard forthwith. The respondent No.1 has
 been served but neither they have been appearing
 nor they have engaged an Advocate.

¶10

 3. Considering the limited controversy,the
 matter is taken up for hearing forthwith. The
 applicant is the original appellant in Criminal
 Appeal No. 677/2006. He was in appeal aggrieved
 by order passed by the Learned Metropolitan
 Magistrate, Mumbai, dated 28th July 2006 in CC No.
 236/SS/2005 of conviction and sentence under
 section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
 Sentence is of Simple Imprisonment for 3 months

¶11

 and to pay a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs, out of which

¶12

 Rs.1 lakh is to be paid to the complainant.

¶13

 4. The applicant applied for suspension of
 the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
 The applicant requests that suspension of his
 sentence was granted but he was directed to
 deposit a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs.

¶14

 5. The applicant could not deposit the said
 amount and consequently sentence was not
 suspended. In these circumstances, he could have
 been taken into custody, but since he suffered a
 paralytic stroke and was hospitalised, he has
 preferred this application renewing prayer for
 suspension of sentence.

¶15

 6. On the earlier occasion I had directed the
 notice to be issued to the original complainant-
 respondent No.1, provided the applicant shows his
 bonafides and deposits before the lower appellate
 Court some amount. Shri Bhatt after taking
 instructions made a statement that the
 applicant/appellant would deposit a sum of Rs.

¶16

 3.5 lakhs in the lower appellate Court and
 produce proof in that behalf.

¶17

 7. Shri Bhatt states that the amount is
 deposited. Considering that the applicant was

¶18

 hospitalised on account of ailment and now that he
 has deposited a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs in the lower
 appellate Court, interest of justice would be
 subserved if sentence imposed by the trial Court
 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
 Accordingly, applicant/appellant would be enlarged
 on bail on the same terms and conditions but with
 fresh bail bond.

¶19

 8. The lower appellate Court is directed to
 dispose of the pending appeal so also pass
 appropriate order with regard to amount deposited
 by the applicant in the lower appellate Court.

¶20

 9. Revision application is allowed in the

¶21

 above terms.

¶22

 10. Certified copy expedited.

¶23

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Jayesh N. Sonpal v. M/S. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh N. Sonpal v. M/S. Pankaj Extrusions Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabana Shaukat Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hitesh Parbat Solanki and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Mahadev More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ram Venkat Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Deoram Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhakar Haribhau Bolwalkar Vs Kantilal Lakhamshi Shah and Anr.