Quashed

Rajnikant Gomtiprasad Tiwari v. M/S. Suraksha Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2013REVN/171/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Rs.15,000 deposit by the original complainant before the Appellate Court is treated as part of compensation. The applicant agreed to pay an additional Rs.15,000 to compound the offence. Consequently, the conviction and compensation were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed and set aside. Application to compound under Section 147 was accepted.

Rajnikant Gomtiprasad Tiwari Vs M/S. Suraksha Travels Pvt. Ltd… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2013)

1/2

revn171-12.sxw

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2012 IN APPEAL NO.34 OF 2010 IN

¶7

COMPLAINT NO.2837/SS OF 2008

¶8

Mr.Rajnikant Gomtiprasad Tiwari.

¶9

…Applicant/Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1.M/s.Suraksha Travels Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

¶12

Mr.Y.R.Dube, for Applicant/Petitioner.

¶13

Ms.S.S.Dwiwedi i/b. Abjijit J.Gondwal, for Respondent no.1.

¶14

Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent no.2.

¶15

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶16

DATED : 21^h August, 2013

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The concurrent findings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, are questioned. The cheque amount was Rs.55,000/-, the compensation awarded was Rs.75,000/-. By calculation, Rs.72,500/- are already deposited out of which controversy revolves to deposit of Rs.15,000/- before the Appellate Court. The original complainant says, such deposit would not be accounted, as it was towards surety. The revision applicant says, it was part of compensation.

2/2

revn171-12.sxw

Pvr

Be as it may, deposit of Rs.15,000/- before the Appellate Court be treated as part of compensation and the respondent-original complainant shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶24

Since the matter is dragged for a quite long period from 2007, learned Counsel, on instructions from revision applicant, agrees to pay additional sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to respondent-original complainant upto 23^rd September,2013. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 – original complainant accepts above proposal and has no objection for compounding in terms of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

In the result, the revision applicant to additionally pay directly to respondent no.1 Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) upto 23^rd September,2013. Respondent no.1 is at liberty to withdraw the deposited amount including receiving D.D. for Rs.2,500/-. The conviction recorded against the revision applicant, subject of case no.2837/SS of 2008 is quashed and set aside. The revision applicant to additionally pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with High Court Legal Services Committee upto 23^rd September,2013.

Rajnikant Gomtiprasad Tiwari v. M/S. Suraksha Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnikant Gomtiprasad Tiwari v. M/S. Suraksha Travels Pvt. Ltd. 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dhanpal Babgonda Patil

Manik Anna Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhagyashree Krida Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tabrej Ansir Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narendra Dhanpal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Virendrakumar Ayodhta Maurya Vs the State of Maharashtra