Disposed

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2012APL/1082/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to allow the withdrawal of a bail deposit made in criminal proceedings. Instead, the court directed transfer of the amount to a pending summary suit filed by the complainant on the Original Side to protect the interests of both parties, subject to the final outcome of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Amount deposited by applicant as bail security in criminal proceedings directed to be transferred to credit of Summary Suit No.1603 of 2011.

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaikh Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

SSK/905

apl 1082.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1082 OF 2011

¶6

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaik ....Applicant/ Org. Accused Versus State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mrs. Seema Sarnaik a/w Mr. Milind Sawant, advocates for the applicant. Mrs. Poonam P Bhosale, APP for the State.

¶8

Mr. Q M Ashpaq, advocate for respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶10

DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶13

By this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant is challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 7^th September, 2011 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Principal Judge in Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2011 whereby the respondent No.2 was allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,60,600/- deposited by the applicant in the Additional Sessions Court at Sewree.

¶14

SSK/905 2

¶15

apl 1082.11

¶16

Respondent No.2 filed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the applicant in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 6^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 11^th November, 2009, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer SI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.30,53,000/- in default to suffer SI for one month. Out of the fine, if paid by the applicant, the amount of Rs.30,50,000/- was directed to be given to respondent No.2-complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.. The applicant, thereafter, preferred Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2010. In this appeal, Miscellaneous Application No.9 of 2010 was taken out for bail. The said application was disposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai, by his order dated 11^th November, 2010 and substantive sentence awarded to the applicant was suspended on the condition that the applicant shall pay 20% amount out of the total fine amount of Rs.30,53,000/-. The applicant, accordingly has deposited an amount of Rs.5,60,600/-( i.e. 20% amount out of the total fine amount) in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree. The applicant’s appeal thereafter, however, came to be dismissed by order dated 11^th January, 2011. The applicant’s Criminal Revision Application No.39 of 2011 challenging his conviction also came to be dismissed by this Court by speaking order dated 8^th February, 2011.

¶17

SSK/905 3

¶18

apl 1082.11

¶19

Respondent No.2 thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2011 for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the applicant, which came to be allowed as stated above. The applicant after the dismissal of his appeal and revision before the lower appellate court and this Court respectively was taken into custody and he has undergone SI for a period of four months. Release Certificate to that effect issued by the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Jail is annexed at page 65.

¶20

Admittedly, respondent No.2 also approached this Court on the Original Side by filing Summary Suit No.1603 of 2011 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If the respondent No.2 is allowed to withdraw the amount in pursuance of the impugned order and if the summary suit filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed, then, the applicant will suffer great prejudice. However, in the event, respondent No.2 succeeds in the said summary suit, the amount deposited by the applicant in the Additional Sessions Court at Sewree as condition of bail can be adjusted to the decree which may be passed in the said summary suit. The applicant has already undergone sentence imposed by learned Magistrate. The proceedings in the Civil Court will have to be decided independently on the basis of evidence adduced therein. In these circumstances and in order to protect the interest of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the amount in question should be

SSK/905

apl 1082.11

transferred to the credit of summary suit and the same will be subject to the final outcome of the suit. The application is, accordingly, disposed of by passing the following order:

¶25

The amount deposited along with interest accrued thereon by the applicant in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, in pursuance of Order dated 11^th January, 2010 in Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2010 in the Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010 is directed to be transferred to the credit of Summary Suit No.1603 of 2011 which is filed by respondent No.2 against the applicant on the original side of the High Court.

¶26

The Prothonotary & Senior Master after the receipt of the said amount shall invest the same in any nationalised bank in interest earning securities for initial period of one year and thereafter shall be renew the same from time to time.

¶27

The transfer of the above amount shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the summary suit.

¶28

The above stated amount shall be subject to the final outcome of Summary Suit No.1603 of 2011.

SSK/905

apl 1082.11

It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the respondent No.2’s claim and the said summary suit shall be decided

¶33

independently on its own merits.

¶34

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Ahmed Mohammed Tauhid Shaikh 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

Vikas Baburao Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Wecom Trust and 2 Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. Sandip Deshpande - Applicant

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Ramdas Pote Vs Jyoti @ Manisha Dnyaneshwar Pote and Ors.

Yasmeen Yakub Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.