Dismissed

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2009APPW/279/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, an accused with a pending criminal appeal, sought an extension to deposit 25% of award compensation. The court found the applicant failed to comply with prior directions and filed no application, dismissing the current plea and leaving action to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Application stands dismissed; no directions issued to the Sessions Court Mumbai.

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.279 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.222 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.601 OF 2008

¶3

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

None for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Sujit Kurup i/b. M/s.Legal Assoc.for Respondent No.2. Ms.P.P.Shine, A.P.P.for the State.

¶10

CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J.

¶11

DATED : APRIL 3RD, 2009.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Today nobody present for the Applicant. Heard learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and the learned A.P.P. Ms.Shinde for Respondent State of Maharashtra.

¶14

¶15

This application preferred by the Applicant Petitioner original accused asking for extension of four weeks time to comply the order of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.601 of 2008 to deposit 25 % of the totally awarded compensation before the first Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court, Bombay. It may be noted that earlier in 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding, present Applicant was convicted by 44^th Metropolitan Magistrate Court Andheri and he was sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Against the said order, Applicant preferred criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Bombay vide Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2008 and in which the impugned order came to be passed on 25^th February, 2008 admitting the Appeal and suspending the sentence of condition that he shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 24^th March, 2008. It was the order of the Sessions Court, Mumbai challenged in the criminal Writ Petition No.601 of 2008.

¶16

After hearing the contents this Court passed an order dated 25^th July, 2008. By the said orders, directions given by the Sessions Court, Mumbai were modified to the following extent :

¶17

“ The sentence imposed on the Petitioner shall be suspended on conditions that he deposits 25 % of Rs.18,50,000/- within four weeks from today in the Sessions Court”

¶18

¶19

As such, by the said impugned order, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to deposit the said 25 % amount of Rs.18,50,000/- within one month from the date of the said order. Failing to comply with the said order non bailable warrant came to be issued against the Petitioner, as reported on behalf of Respondent No.2. In the meantime, against the said impugned order of Writ Petition 601 of 2008, the Petitioner filed S.L.P. which was dismissed as reported by Respondent No.2. Now with the present application the Petitioner has approached this Court on 28^th August, 2008 asking for more time to deposit 25% amount within four weeks from the date of its application.

¶20

It is a factual position that Petitioner has failed to comply the directions given in criminal Writ Petition 601 of 2008 while disposing of said Petition. Today also there is nothing filed on record to ascertain that he had paid any amount as per the directions.

¶21

Under such circumstances, the present criminal Application deserves to be dismissed without giving any directions to the Sessions Court Mumbai. It can be open for the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai to take appropriate action against the Petitioner in pending Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2008. Hence, the following order :

:: O R D E R ::

Criminal Application stands dismissed.

¶26

(A.R. JOSHI, J.)

¶27

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Laxminarayan Khetan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naved Liyakat Khalife Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashpaq Balbeg Mirza Vs Baswanteshwar Rural Non Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, and Anr.

Kundalik Govind Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jairaj Vallabhdas Java Vs the Chief Enforcement Officer and Anr.

Prakash M. Pai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaram Dharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.