Suresh Shankardas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2008WP/265/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders requiring deposit of 25% or 50% of compensation in cheque bounce prosecution. Bench held depositing part exempts from interference under Article 227 but granted extra time for balance.

What did the court decide?

Time of six weeks granted to petitioner to deposit the balance compensation amount.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2008.

¶2

Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani.	..Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	..Respondents.
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2008.
Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. versus	..Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.	..Respondents.
AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2008.
Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. versus	..Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. AND	..Respondents.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2008.
Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. versus	..Petitioner.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....	..Respondents.
Mr. Jehangir Khajotia, for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. I.M. Vohra, i/b. Bipin Joshi, for the Respondent No.2, in all the Petitions. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.1., in all the Petitions. ....
CORAM : A. DATE : 14T	S. OKA, J. H AUGUST,2008.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petiti	oner
and the learned Advocate for the	second	Respondent.

¶3

¶4

The	second Responde	nt filed four different co	mplaints
under	section 138	of the Negotiable Instruments	Act,
1881	against the	Petitioner. The said	four
complaints	resulted	in conviction of the P	etitioner.
Appeals	were preferr	ed by the Petitioner before	the
Sessions	Court. In	the Appeals, an interim order	was
passed	on 11th	September 2007 directing that	the
substantive	sentence	shall remain suspended upon	the
Petitioner	depositing	50% of the compensation	amount
payable.	On 10th	March 2008, this Court	granted
ad-interim	relief,	subject to the	Petitioner
depositing	25% of	the amount of compensation in	each
case	within a pe	riod of four weeks from that	date.
The	Petitioner did	not comply with the	said
ad-interim	order.	On 11th July 2008, this	Court
extended	the time	to deposit 25% amount till	15th

Suresh Shankardas Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2008)

¶8

Petitioner		submitted	that	as per	the	decision of	the
Apex	Court	in	the	case of	Dilip	Dahanukar,	the
Petitioner		can	be	directed to	de	posit only	a
reasonable		amount	which	he is in	a	position to	pay.
He su	bmitted	that	it	is impossible		for the Pe	titioner

to	pay	50	% of	the co	mpensa	tion	amount.	He	sub	mitted
that if	the		amount	fixed	by	the	Sessions	Court	is	not
reduced,		it	will	amount	to	de	priving	the	Peti	tioner
of	right		of	preferring	an	app	eal.	He	ther	efore,
submitted	that		the	impugned	ord	ers	may	be modi	fied	by

¶14

Respond	ent-Com	plainant	opp	osed the	Peti	tion	by
pointing		out	that the	impugned	order was	passed	on
11th	Sep	tember	2007	and the	Petitioner	could	not
deposit		even	25% of	the amount	within a	time	granted
by	this	Court	on 10th	March 20	08. He	submitted	that
the	25%	amount	was	ultimately d	eposited in	July	2008.

true	that		the	Ap	pellate	Court in	such	a	case	can
direct	depo	sit	of	a	reasona	ble amount.		What	is	the
reasonable			amount	ul	timately	depends	upon	the		facts
and	circu	mst	ances	of	each	case.	The	App	ellate	Court

¶25

" I respectfully sub	mit th	at the	Petitioner
has in affidavit filed	before	the	Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, subm	itted	that he	is
Chairman of Limited Com	pany	namely	Bright
Star Data Services Privat	e Lim	ited. I	say
that the Petitioner is	owner	and o	ccupying
substantially big premises	at	a p	restigious
area in South Mumbai as	it is	apparent	from
the cause title that	the	Petitioner	is
residing at 28, Neel	Kamal,	Peddar	Road,
Mumbai-400 026. I say	that	the Petition	er is
having British Passport	No.740	156205,	which
he has produced in the	Trial	Court. I	say
that the Passport reveals	that	the	Petitioner
is regularly traveling abroad	.	It is	further
learnt that the Petitio	ner is	traveling	in
Business			Class."
aforesaid assertions have not	been	denied by	the

¶28

Petitioner.		Consideri	ng	what	is	stated	in t	he	reply
of	the second	Resp	ondent,	it	cannot	be	said	that	the
direction	to	deposit	50%	of	the	compe	nsation		amount
is	unreasonable.	T	herefore,	n	o case	is	made	out	for
interference	in	th	is P	etition	under	Art	icle 227		of
the	Constitution	of	India.		As	stated	earlier,		even
25%	of the	amount	was	de	posited	by	the Peti	tioner	in
July	2007 th	ough	the	order	dated	10th	March		2008
passed	by	this	Court	rec	ords t	hat	the	Pe	titioner
himself	offered	to	depo	sit	25%	of th	e c	ompe	nsation
amount.	Though	no	case	is	made	out	for	interf	erence,
a rea	sonable	time	deserv	es t	o be	gra	nted	to	the

Suresh Shankardas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girishchandra M. Gupta Vs Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Bhaskar Shetty and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Shankardas Mulani v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girishchandra M. Gupta Vs Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Bhaskar Shetty and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A compact analysis

Nilakshi Vilas Khater Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmarao Baba Atram Vs the State of Maharashtra