Partly allowed

Pandit Dnyanoba Margal v. the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2013REVN/13/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of two criminal revisions convicting the appellant under Section 138 NI Act. The court maintained convictions and compensation orders but quashed the substantive imprisonment, directing sentences to run concurrently up to time already undergone, and adjusted compensation payments against pending civil decree.

What did the court decide?

Convictions maintained; substantive sentences quashed and reduced to time undergone; compensation orders maintained with payment adjusted against pending civil decree.

Pandit Dnyanoba Margal Vs the Maharashtra State Cooperative… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2011 WITH

¶4

CRIMINAL REVN/14/2011

¶5

PANDIT DNYANOBA MARGAL VERSUS

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for applicant in both revisions. Mr.S.R.Palnitkar APP for Respondent – state Mr. D M Suryawanshi Advocate for R/sole in both revisions

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 19, 2013

¶11

ORAL ORDER :-

¶12

Both these revision applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

¶13

The applicant was prosecuted by the respondent herein on the allegation of having committed an offence

¶14

punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in

¶15

two different cases i.e. SCC No.1245/2003 and SCC 142/2004.

¶16

2 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶17

The applicant was convicted and sentenced by the learned

¶18

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani after holding a trial, in

¶19

both the cases. In SCC No.142/2004, the applicant was

¶20

sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.6,30,000/-(Rs. Six lac thirty thousand) to the complainant, as

¶21

and by way of compensation. In SCC No.1245/2003, the applicant was sentenced to suffer S.I. for two months and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lac) to the complainant, as compensation. The amount of compensation awarded in both the cases was the amount equivalent to the amount of cheques, involved in the cases.

¶22

The applicant challenged his conviction and sentences imposed upon him in the aforesaid cases, by filing two separate appeals, but the Court of Sessions dismissed the said appeals. It is under these circumstances, the applicant has approached this

¶23

Court, by filing the aforesaid two revision applications.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

¶25

the applicant had a good case on merits, but considering the

¶26

3 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶27

nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction, he would not raise the question of correctness of the conviction of the applicants as recorded by the Magistrate in the aforesaid cases. What he submitted is that, the substantive sentences as had been imposed upon the applicant are rather harsh and that, they needed to be set aside.

¶28

He also submitted that during the pendancy of present revision application, the applicant has totally deposited an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven lacs) in the Court. He submitted that totally, the applicant is required to pay an amount of Rs.8,30,000/-(Rs. Eight lac thirty thousand only) to the complainant and that, apart from the amount of Rs.7,00,000/(Rs. Seven lac) deposited by the applicant in the Court, the complainant has encashed the Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/(Rs. one lac), given by the applicant. Thus, according to him, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight lac) has already been paid by the applicant to the complainant.

¶29

The learned counsel for the complainant admits the

¶30

4 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶31

fact of deposit of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rs. Seven lacs) by the applicant in

¶32

the Court, but has no instructions as to whether a further amount

¶33

of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac) has been obtained by the complainant by encashing the Bank Guarantee.

¶34

It is also not in dispute before me that, the

¶35

complainant had also filed a civil suit in respect of the total

¶36

amounts due and payable to the complainant by the applicant herein and that, the said suit has been decreed. It is not in dispute that the amounts recoverable in the said suit include the amounts which were sought to be repaid by issuing the cheques

¶37

in question.

¶38

In my opinion, under the circumstances, the

¶39

substantive sentences imposed upon the applicant are rather harsh. The offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve any moral turptitude and it is, basically a breach of contract to pay. It is, therefore, not necessary that, in case of a conviction with respect to an offence

¶40

punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a

¶41

5 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶42

substantive sentence must be imposed. The Court has been given

¶43

an option to impose only a sentence of fine. Considering all the

¶44

relevant aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the proper exercise

¶45

of the discretion in this case would have been not to impose any substantive sentence upon the applicant. Any way, I am informed

¶46

that the applicant has undergone a total imprisonment of about 15 days. In my opinion, the sentences imposed upon the applicant in both the aforesaid cases should be directed to run concurrently and that, such concurrent sentences should be reduced to the

¶47

period already undergone by the applicant.

¶48

In the result, the revision applications are disposed of

¶49

as follows :-

¶50

i] Revision Applications are partly allowed.

¶51

ii] The conviction of the applicant in the aforesaid cases is maintained. However, the substantive sentences imposed upon the applicant are directed to run con-currently and same are reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.

¶52

iii] The orders passed by the Magistrate, requiring the compensation to be paid to the complainant are maintained.

¶53

6 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶54

iv] Out of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven lacs) deposited by the applicant in the Court, the complainant has already withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. two lac). The complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lac).

¶55

v] Any amount as may be due and payable by the applicant to the complainant towards the remaining part of the compensation, after adjusting the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven lacs) so deposited, shall be paid by the applicant to the complainant within a period of ONE MONTH from today. If, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac) has been recovered by the complainant by encashing the Bank Guarantee, with respect to the transactions relating to the cheques in the present cases, then, such amount shall also be adjusted towards the payment of compensation.

¶56

vi] In the event of the applicant’s failure to pay the balance amount of compensation within a period of one month from today, the learned counsel for the complainant shall take appropriate steps to require the applicant to undergo a proportionate default sentence.

¶57

7 CRI REV 13.11 & 14.11

¶58

vii] It is made clear that the amount of compensation as would be received by the complainant shall be adjusted towards the satisfaction of the decree that has been passed by the Cooperative Court at Bombay, against the applicant herein.

¶59

viii] Revision Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid

¶60

terms.

¶61

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶62

aaa/-

Pandit Dnyanoba Margal v. the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandit Dnyanoba Margal v. the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.

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

Jalgaon Cloth Merchant Urban Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd. Vs Rajendra Maganrao Sonwane and Anr.

Satishchandra Ramchandra Wani Vs Kishor Dwarkadas Fulawani and Anr.

Amar Bahadur Singh Batuk Singh and Ors. Vs Kishore Dwarkadas Fulwani and Anr.

Dhondiba Namdeo Dhonde and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Pandit Dnyanoba Margal Vs the Maharashtra State Co. Op Marketing Federation Ltd. Mumbai through Dist Marketing Officer

Surekha Prathivraj Patil Vs Kiran Ajabsing Patil and Ors.