Partly allowed

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller v. Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad Dead through His Legal Heirs Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2013REVN/92/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision to reduce applicant's imprisonment to one day and set a fine, acknowledging his deposit of compensation amount secures respondents' financial recovery.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to one day; fine of Rs. 1,50,000 with 3 months imprisonment in default; existing deposit adjusted towards compensation.

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller Vs Noor… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.Rev.Appln92.10.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2010

¶5

Mohamad Ekbal Mohammad Lliyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller

¶6

..APPLICANT

¶7

-VERSUS

¶8

Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad

¶9

(Since deceased Through his legal heirs)

¶10

Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari

¶11

and others.

¶12

..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Warma B.R. APP for Respondent No.5 : Mr. G.R. Ingole Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Shah Subodh P.

¶14

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 11, 2013

¶15

ORAL ORDER :-

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The applicant is the original accused. He was prosecuted on a complaint made by one Noor Mohamad Jan Mohamad in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act. After holding the trial, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of one month and also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant within a specified period.

¶18

The applicant challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence

¶19

Cri.Rev.Appln92.10.odt

¶20

¶21

imposed upon him by filing an appeal, but the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule dismissed the appeal.

¶22

It is under these circumstances that the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present Revision challenging his conviction and the sentence.

¶23

I have heard Mr. Warma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, who are the heirs of the original complainant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it necessary to go into the merits of conviction, recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.

¶24

Mr. Warma, the learned counsel submitted that an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- has already been deposited by the applicant during the pendency of the present Revision Application. According to him, the same would satisfy the amount of compensation that has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. Mr. Warma further submits that on the strength of the said cheque, a Civil Suit was also filed, which has been decreed in favour of the original complainant i.e. the payee. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the parties that the execution proceedings in that regard are going on.

¶25

Mr. Warma submitted that in these changed circumstances, the applicant need not be made to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial Court. He submits that the money of the respondents is already secured, in as much as, the amount directed to be paid towards compensation, has already been received by the respondents and further, the respondents are armed with the decree, which can be executed.

¶26

Cri.Rev.Appln92.10.odt

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he would not oppose, if the substantive sentence is set aside, but all that he apprehends is that there would be difficulty in execution of the decree. On this, the learned counsel for the applicant assures that the applicant has sufficient means, and that, therefore, the decree would be satisfied. Shri. Warma specifically undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant would satisfy the decree of the Civil Court. This statement made by Mr. Warma is accepted.

¶29

Accepting the statements and since the amount due and payable to the respondents is already secured, I think it proper to reduce the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court.

¶30

In the result, Revision Application is partly allowed.

¶31

The conviction of the applicant, as recorded by the trial Court and as upheld by the Appellate Court, is maintained.

¶32

However, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court is reduced to imprisonment for one day. Additionally, the applicant shall pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

¶33

An amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the amount of fine, if realised, be paid to the respondents as compensation.

¶34

The amount already deposited by the applicant in the Court, during the pendency of the present Revision Application shall be adjusted towards the payment of compensation as ordered above. The balance of the

¶35

4 Cri.Rev.Appln92.10.odt

¶36

fine, if any, be paid by the applicant within a period of one month from today, failing which, he shall undergo a proportionate default sentence.

¶37

Set-off be given for the custody period already undergone by the applicant.

¶38

The Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶39

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶40

¶41

sga/-

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller v. Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad Dead through His Legal Heirs Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamad Ekball Mohammad Illyas Ansari @ Ikbal Doller v. Noor Mohammad Jan Mohammad Dead through His Legal Heirs Jaibunisa Noor Mohammad Ansari and Ors.

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

Vitthal Dhondiba Suryawanshi Vs the Dist. Supdt. of Police, Beed and Ors.

Bharadwaj Yadavrao Pagare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madan Tulsiram Hembade Vs Ashok Sonaji Hembade

Mubashir Ahemad Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Labib-Ul-Hasan Mohd. Shoyab Ahemad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Babasaheb Shrirang Hapase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others