Quashed

Yellappa Vishny Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2011REVN/206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, upon the parties settling their dispute and the applicant depositing and allowing withdrawal of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court and Appellate Court orders convicting the applicant quashed; respondent permitted to withdraw compensation deposited by the applicant.

Yellappa Vishny Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

-: 1 :-

revn-206/11

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 206 OF 2011

¶6

Yellappa Vishnu Sonkamble. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the applicant. Mrs. S. V. Gajare, APP for R-1. Mr. V. K. Gupta for R-2.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 25, 2011 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and respondent no.2. Applicant is the accused in Criminal Case No.46/SS/2008 filed by respondent no.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶11

By the order dated 8/1/2010, the applicant came to be convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44^th Court, Andheri and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months with payment of compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant. Appeal preferred by the Applicant came to be

-: 2 :-

revn-206/11

dismissed.

Now, the Applicant and respondent no.2 have settled their dispute amicably. The Applicant has deposited the compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- [in the trial Court and Appellate Court]. The Applicant has no objection if this amount is allowed to be withdrawn by respondent no.2. The Applicant and respondent no.2 have filed consent terms, which are signed by the Applicant and respondent no.2 as well as by their respective Advocates. The applicant and respondent no.2 are personally present before the Court. On query they have stated that they have gone through the contents of consent terms and they have understood the same.

¶16

In view of the above position, thus, it is clear that in terms of section 147 of the N.I. Act, 1881 the parties have compounded the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

¶17

In the light of above, the trial Court’s order convicting the accused and the Appellate Court’s order confirming the said conviction deserve to be quashed and set aside, and they are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶18

Respondent no.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount of

¶19

-: 3 :-

¶20

revn-206/11

¶21

compensation deposited by the Applicant in the Courts below.

¶22

Applications, if any, taken out in this revision by either of the parties, in view of disposal of the main revision, do not survive and they are accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Yellappa Vishny Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yellappa Vishny Sonkamble 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

Abdul Moid Azhar and Anr. Vs Shehnaz Begum Abdul Moid Azhar and Ors.

Jamilabi Yakub Naik and Ors. Vs Afrin Sohail Naik and Anr.

Prakash T. Tanna Vs Prakashchandra Kamalnath Dubey and Ors.

Yellappa Vishnu Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yellappa Vishnu Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Rangnath Kedar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra