Dismissed

Ganpat Shankar Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2011APPLN/496/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an criminal application challenging the Sessions Court's suspension of sentence conditioned on deposit of Rs.1,50,000. The Court held no illegality existed despite the accused's claim of cheque misuse and lack of signature.

What did the court decide?

The application for suspension of sentence payment stands rejected. The appellate Court directed to expedite the appeal hearing.

Ganpat Shankar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 Cri-A-496-10.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 496 OF 2010

¶5

Shri Ganpat Shankar Bhosale .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Madhav V. Thorat,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. V.R.Bhosale, APP,for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. M.R.Deshpande, Advocate, for the respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

¶8

DATE : 14th March, 2011.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the appliant.

¶11

The present applicant, who is original complainant had filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No.2 on the ground that cheque for Rs.3 lakh issued by him was dishonoured and inspite of notice the accused had failed to make the payment. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,10,000/-. Out of that, an amount of Rs.3 lakh was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

¶12

In the appeal filed by the accused, the Sessions Court directed him to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- as a condition for suspension of the sentence. The amount was deposited. The complainant made an application for payment of that amount

¶13

2 Cri-A-496-10.sxw

¶14

of Rs.1,50,000/-. That application was opposed and the appellate Court rejected the application.

¶15

It appears that according to the accused, he was not bound to make payment of any amount to the complainant because the amount of loan was advanced by the complainant to one Makrand Joshi and by way of security of money, the complainant had obtained three blank cheques from the accused and those cheques were being misused by him. According to him, the cheque was not bearing his signature and no amount was due to be paid by him. He also contended that if the amount is paid to the complainant, it wil be difficult to recover that amount in case he succeeded in appeal.

¶16

Taking into consideration the defence of the accused and the circumstances noted above, I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Court.

¶17

Therefore, the application stands rejected. However, the appellate Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal and dispose of the same as early as possible. The amount shall be invested in fixed deposit with some Nationalised Bank, if appeal cannot be decided within 3 months.

Ganpat Shankar Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Shankar Bhosale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasim Azim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Indiabulls Properties Pvt.Ltd and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Watapalli Tulasinga Balaji Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nivrutti Jagannath Parse

Dashrath @ Narayan Maruti Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohidas Dnyanadev Satpute Vs Sadashiv Kisan Sutar