Partly allowed

Shivraj Nagappa Ghogade v. Bandappa Hanmantrao Gandigude

Bombay HC2 Sept 2013REVN/41/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Application challenges a conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court held that since the fine was paid and cheque amount recovered, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained.

Shivraj Nagappa Ghogade Vs Bandappa Hanmantrao Gandigude — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 Cr. Revn. Apln. 41.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2010

¶4

Shivraj S/o Nagappa Ghogade

¶5

V/s

¶6

Bandappa S/o Hanmantrao Gandigude

¶7

Mr. B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2013

¶10

.......................

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

By consent, admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith.

¶13

The petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent herein with respect to an offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶14

The learned Magistrate, after holding a trial, found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay a fine of 90,000/- [ Rupees Ninety Thousand only ], in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month. The Magistrate also directed, an amount of 85,000/- [ Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only ] out of the amount of fine, to be paid to

¶15

2 Cr. Revn. Apln. 41.2010

¶16

the respondent i.e. the original complainant as compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Court of Sessions, but the learned Additional Session Judge, who heard the Appeal, dismissed the same. It is under the circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Revision Application.

¶17

The amount of fine has already been deposited by the applicant immediately after the trial Court delivered its Judgment. By an order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 242 of 2012, an amount of ` 85,000/- [ Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only ], from out of the said amount, has been permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent, as the applicant did not object for the same.

¶18

5. I have carefully considered the matter.

¶19

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that, since the amount of the cheque has already been recovered by the respondent and since the applicant has already undergone a sentence of about 21 days till today, a lenient view of the matter be taken and the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶20

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is reasonable. The offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not involve any moral turpitude. It is not shown to me that the applicant has committed some offences in the past also. Under these circumstances, since the entire amount of the cheque has already been recovered by the respondent/original complainant and

¶21

Cr. Revn. Apln. 41.2010

¶22

since the applicant has already suffered a sentence of imprisonment for a period of about 21 days, he need not be made to undergo any further substantive sentence.

¶23

The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

¶24

The conviction of the applicant and the sentence of fine imposed upon him, as also the direction to pay compensation out of the fine amount, is maintained.

¶25

However, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶26

The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

KNP/Cr. Revn. Apln. 41.2010

Shivraj Nagappa Ghogade v. Bandappa Hanmantrao Gandigude

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Nagappa Ghogade v. Bandappa Hanmantrao Gandigude

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

Ramesh Prabhakar Adhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Shivaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kantilal Parasmal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bandappa Hanmantrao Gandigude Vs Shivraj Nagappa Ghogade

Latif Khan Natthe Khan Tadvi Vs Satpuda Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Faizpur and Another

Dr. Qamar Sultana Dr. Khurshid Ahemad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.