Remanded

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

Bombay HC22 Oct 2013REVN/71/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court revised a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. It quashed the separate compensation order, directing that the fine instead serve as compensation, while maintaining the conviction.),

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained. Substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside. Applicant to pay fine of Rs. 40,000 (first 20,000 deposited), adjusted as compensation to respondent.

Latif Khan Natthe Khan Tadvi Vs Satpuda Urban Credit… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 71 OF 2013

¶5

Latif Khan S/o Natthe Khan Tadvi

¶6

..APPLICANT

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Satpuda Urban Credit Cooperative
Society Ltd., and others.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. U.S. Patil
APP for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.N. Muley
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.D. Hon

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 22, 2013

¶14

ORAL ORDER :-

¶15

The applicant was convicted of an

¶16

offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by

¶17

the respondent no.1 herein and was sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to

¶18

pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for two months. Additionally,

¶19

the applicant was also directed to pay

¶20

compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent

¶21

2 Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶22

no.1 i.e. original complainant (hereinafter

¶23

referred to as `the complainant’), within a month
from the order passed by the trial Court.

¶24

The applicant’s appeal challenging his

¶25

conviction and sentence imposed upon him was
dismissed by the Court of Sessions. The applicant
under these circumstances has approached this
Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

¶26

2.Though certain submissions on merits

¶27

were initially attempted to be advanced by the

¶28

learned counsel for the applicant, later, he

¶29

stated that he would be satisfied if the

¶30

substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is
set aside. He submitted that the transaction in

¶31

question is basically a loan transaction. He also
submitted that the applicant is poor farmer and

¶32

has not been able to repay the amount of loan. He
also submitted that a decree of the Co-operative
Court has already been obtained by the complainant
and the certificate for recovery under Section 101

¶33

3 Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶34

of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 has been obtained by the original
complainant. He therefore, submits that a lenient
view of the matter be taken and substantive
sentence imposed upon the applicant be set aside.
He also submits that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has
already been deposited by the applicant in this
Court, pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2013.

¶35

3.I have considered the matter. I have

¶36

heard Mr. V.D. Hon, the learned counsel for the
original complainant. The learned counsel submits
that he is not keen on that the applicant must
necessarily be sentenced to suffer imprisonment,
but submits that the money of the original
complainant must be properly secured. He submits
that, that appropriate orders ensuring recovery of
compensation, that has been ordered to be paid by

¶37

the trial Court to the original complainant, be
passed.

¶38

4.The order passed by the learned

¶39

4 Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶40

Magistrate suffers from one error. He has imposed

¶41

a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and has directed

¶42

compensation to be paid over and above the same.
It is clear from the provisions of Section 357 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure that where a

¶43

sentence of fine is imposed, the amount of
compensation can be ordered to be paid only from
such fine amount. There cannot be any compensation
to be ordered apart from the amount of fine that
is being imposed upon an accused.

¶44

5.To this extent, the impugned order needs

¶45

to be corrected.

¶46

6.After considering all the relevant
aspects of the matter, this appears to be a fit

¶47

case, where the imposition of a substantive
sentence was not called for.

¶48

7.The order of conviction, as passed by
the learned Magistrate, is maintained. However,
the substantive sentence imposed upon the

¶49

Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶50

¶51

applicant is set aside.

¶52

The applicant is sentenced to pay a fine

¶53

of Rs. 40,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine,
if recovered, shall be paid to the original
complainant as compensation.

¶54

8.The amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by
the applicant, pursuant to the order passed by
this Court on 08.04.2013, shall be adjusted
towards the payment of fine, and towards the part
payment of the compensation.

¶55

Balance of fine amount shall be paid by

¶56

the applicant within a period of two months from
today by depositing the same in the trial Court,
which shall then to be paid to the original
complainant as the remaining part of compensation.
In the event of the failure of the applicant to
pay balance of amount of fine within the period
stipulated above, the learned Magistrate shall

¶57

6 Cri.Rev.Appln71.13.odt

¶58

take steps to require the applicant to undergo
proportionate default sentence.

¶59

9.The amount of compensation received by
the original complainant, pursuant to this order
shall be adjusted towards the satisfaction of the
decree that has been passed by the Co-operative
Court against the applicant.

¶60

10.The Revision Application is disposed of

¶61

in the aforesaid terms.

¶62

11.All concerned to act upon an

¶63

authenticated copy of this order.

¶64

***

¶65

sga/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Javed Ahmed Abdul Majeed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Baburao Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattu Jagannath Bhondwe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dyaneshwar Bhanudas Jagdhane and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

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