Allowed

Bbasaheb Nathaji Mhaske v. Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Co. Op Soceity Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2013WP/830/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing conviction under Section 138 NI Act filed a writ petition seeking recall of order dismissing condonation of delay. Court condoned delay, ordered disposal of appeal on merits, and granted bail with suspended sentence due to deposited amount and clean record.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing Criminal Appeal condoned; appeal registered for merit disposal; sentence suspended; petitioner enlarged on bail on Personal Bond.

Bbasaheb Nathaji Mhaske Vs Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Co… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

wp.830.13.907.b

kps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.830 OF 2013 WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2013

¶7

Babasaheb Nathaji Mhaske. ..Petitioner - Versus - Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Cooperative Society Ltd. and another. ..Respondents

¶8

Mr.B.A.Aloor, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.S.r.Ghanavat i/by P.G.Sarda, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶11

DATE :- 18^th April, 2013.

¶12

PC:

¶13

1 The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He filed the Criminal Appeal. His challenge to the conviction and sentence was in issue. However, the Criminal Appeal was barred by limitation. Since it was so barred, the Application to condone the delay was filed and that application has been also dismissed on 06.01.2011. The Application was dismissed because the Petitioner could not remain present to argue his case either in person or through his Advocate and request the lower Appellate Court to condone the delay. The order made in that behalf on 06.01.2011 was sought to be recalled by filing a Review Application, but that Review Application has also been dismissed by the impugned order

¶14

wp.830.13.907.b

¶15

¶16

and hence this Criminal Writ Petition.

¶17

2 Having perused the order under challenge and finding that the Petitioner has, in the meanwhile, deposited the cheque amount, interest of justice would be served if the delay in filing the Criminal Appeal is condoned and it is registered on the file of the Sessions Court at Pune for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶18

3 Since the Petitioner was enlarged on bail during the trial, but has been taken into custody because of dismissal of the Criminal Appeal, but finding that the Petitioner has not misused liberty while on bail during the trial, interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on the Petitioner is suspended and he is enlarged on bail on Personal Bond which he shall execute afresh to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court. Order accordingly.

¶19

4 Both the Writ Petition as well as the Criminal Application are disposed of in these terms.

¶20

( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

Bbasaheb Nathaji Mhaske v. Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Co. Op Soceity Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bbasaheb Nathaji Mhaske v. Sankalpa Shri Nagari Sahakari Co. Op Soceity 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

K. Ravindra Shetty Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Karim Mohamed Maredia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sem Mon (Nini) Ling Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Jhunjhunwala and Anr. Vs M/S. Tramter India Private Limited and Anr.

Ghanshyam Yesu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Sukhram Chaurasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.