Partly allowed

Govind Baburao Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2013ALP/12/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, original complainant in a cheque dishonour case, filed a criminal revision after the Sessions Court acquitted the accused. This Court held the revision was not maintainable and converted it into an appeal under Section 374 CrPC, admitting the appeal for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Criminal Revision converted into an appeal; Admitted for final hearing; Order of refund stayed.

Govind Baburao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

12.2013 alp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2013

¶4

Govind Baburao Kadam ...Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. K. Jain i/b S. P. Kashid for the applicant. Mr. R. R. Yadav for respondent Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.

¶10

DATED : JULY 29, 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard respective counsels. The present applicant is original complainant in C. C. No. 17544/SS/2008. The accused was convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was directed to suffer simple imprisonment until rising of the Court and pay compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the complainant under section 357 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 within 6 months from 16/03/2011.

¶13

Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the accused i.e. the present respondent had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 100/2011. The Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay at Sewree by Judgment and Order dated 30/01/2012 has been pleased to acquit the accused i.e. the present respondent under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further ordered that the fine compensation

ism

1/3

12.2013 alp

deposited by her pursuant to the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court shall be refunded to her after appeal period is over. The counsel for the respondent submits that till today he has not filed an application seeking refund of the amount. He further submits that he has no instructions as to whether any amount was deposited towards the compensation while filing Criminal Revision Application.

¶18

The counsel for the applicant submits that in fact Criminal Revision Application was not maintainable before this Court and in fact it should have been an appeal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the proviso to section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section. Section 374 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads thus :

¶19

“(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,

¶20

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

¶21

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

¶22

¶23

may appeal to the Court of Session.”

¶24

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and it resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

ism

2/3

12.2013 alp

O R D E R

i) Application is allowed.

¶30

ii) Appeal admit. Call for record and proceedings.

¶31

iii) Matter to be listed for final hearing in 4^th week of September 2013.

¶32

iv) In the event that the present respondent has deposited any amount towards the compensation pursuant to the orders passed by the Magistrate, shall not be refunded to the respondent till the final hearing of the present appeal.

¶33

v) Order of refund is stayed.

¶34

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

¶35

ism

¶36

3/3

Govind Baburao Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Baburao Kadam 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

Treadewings Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Iqbal Shaikh and Anr.

Vijay Sambhaji Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shamsuddin S/O S. Basheer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dashrath Shamrao Dalve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Vithalrao Garad Vs Sanjay Nagnath Mitragotri and Anr.

Suhas Uttam Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra