Allowed

Pradeep S. Bhalakia v. M.D. Pramd and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jun 2008WP/1185/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a writ petition, set aside the Sessions Court order convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that upon immediate payment of the remaining compensation to the complainant and withdrawal of deposited amounts, the order of conviction should be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Sessions Court order convicting the petitioner and the trial court order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,18,000 to the respondent immediately.

Pradeep S. Bhalakia Vs M.D. Pramd and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

bsb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1185 OF 2008

¶4

Pradeep S. Bhalakia... Petitioner
v/s

¶5

M.D. @ Pramod & anr.... Respondents

¶6

Mr.S.V.Marwadi for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Toor i/by M/s.Crawford Bayley & Co. for Resp.No.1.
Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P. for the State.

¶8

CORAM:SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.

¶9

DATED: 27TH JUNE, 2008

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. The dispute in the present writ petition has arisen
on account of dishonour of the cheque issued by the
petitioner to respondent No.1. The complainant i.e.
the respondent No.1 herein, had filed the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
being CC No.499/SS/2004.

¶12

2. By the judgment and order dated 8.8.2007, the
petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for one month. He has also been directed
to pay compensation of Rs.2,53,000/- within one month
and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. This order was challenged by the applicant

¶13

¶14

before the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision
Application No.269 of 2007. By an order dated 5.6.2008,
the revision application was dismissed and the order of
the Trial Court was confirmed.

¶15

3. The petitioner was released on cash bail of
Rs.25,000/- during the trial. During the pendency of
the revision he was directed to execute a P.R. bond for
the like amount. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.60,000/-
was also deposited by the petitioner in the Sessions
Court in respect of the compensation payable. By my
order dated 12.6.2008, the petitioner was directed to
deposit a further amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Trial
Court as a condition precedent to being released on
bail. Thus, today, an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- has been
deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court. The
petitioner who is present in Court is willing to hand
over the balance amount of Rs.1,18,000/- to the
respondent No.1 who is also present in Court. This
amount shall be handed over to the respondent No.1 by
the petitioner today itself. The respondent No.1 shall
be permitted to withdraw all the amounts deposited by
the petitioner in the trial Court and/or in the Sessions
Court. Thus, on these directions being complied, the
respondent No.1 would have received the entire
compentation payable to him in accordance with the order

¶16

¶17

passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court,
Dadar, Mumbai.

¶18

4. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1, on
instructions from the respondent No.1 submitted that the
respondent No.1 is not interested in the petitioner
undergoing the sentence in view of the fact that the
entire amount will be paid over to him by today.

¶19

5. In this view of the matter, the order of the
Sessions Court in revision application No.269 of 2007 is
set aside.

¶20

6. The order of the trial Court dated 8.8.2007 in
C.C.No.499/SS/2004 is also set aside on condition that
the petitioner pays Rs.1,18,000/- to the respondent
today itself.

¶21

7. The respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdraw all
the amounts that the petitioner has deposited in the
Trial Court and/or in the Sessions Court i.e. the
amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. The petitioner will extend all
co-operation to the respondent No.1 in respect of the
withdrawal of that amount from the Courts.

¶22

8. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

¶24

9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶25

order.

Pradeep S. Bhalakia v. M.D. Pramd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep S. Bhalakia v. M.D. Pramd 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

Rambhau Kondaji Bhawar Vs Manikrao Vithoba Nehe and Anr.

Shriram Gangaram Salunke Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ghanshiram Kanyalal Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra

Himmat Bajirao Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gondappaagauda Parutgauda Koti and Ors.

Lily Bahadur Jassawalla Vs the State of Maharashtra