Allowed

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure v. Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2014REVN/240/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Bombay quashed the conviction and sentenced the applicant after parties settled the dispute through consent terms. The applicant was acquitted, bail was cancelled, and directed to pay nominal costs as they were not a business transaction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence were quashed; applicant stood acquitted; bail bonds canceled; applicant directed to pay Rs.5,000 costs.

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure Vs Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

REVN 24014.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVISION APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2014

¶5

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure.Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale.Respondents
& anr.

¶8

Mr.A.S.Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.A.A.Shinde, Advocate, for the Respondent
No.1

¶9

Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.2 
State

¶10

CORAM:P.D.KODE, J.
DATE:18TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.Heard.

¶13

2.The aforesaid application is preferred
by the original accused in R.C.C.No.5256 of
2005 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
F. C.,Court No.4, Kolhapur assailing the
Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2008 passed by
the said Court convicting the applicant for

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

REVN 24014.odt

¶16

the commission of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for
three months and further ordering compensation
of Rs.3,00,000/ to be paid to the respondent
No.1 within a period of one month from the
date of the Judgment and in default of payment
of compensation to undergo S.I. for one month
and so also confirming the said Judgment and

¶17

Order passed by the Appellate Court by
dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2008
preferred by the applicant on 04.07.2014.

¶18

bail pending admission of the application in

¶19

revision. Before the matter is taken up for
admission, parties have tendered the Consent

¶20

Terms which are taken on record and marked as
“X” for identification.

¶21

4.A perusal of the said Consent Terms

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

REVN 24014.odt

¶24

reveals that the matter has been amicably

¶25

settled in between the parties. None of the
terms incorporated in the said Consent Terms
are either illegal or against the public
policy. In the said Consent Terms the
applicant has agreed of the respondent being
entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,000/
deposited by the applicant in the Appellate
Court. The applicant has further shown

¶26

readiness and willingness for paying proper
cost amount in view of the matter settled at
the higher stage and as per the guide lines
given in the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal

¶27

H., reported in 2010(5) SCC 663. The parties

¶28

are present before the Court and identified by
their respective Advocates being the applicant
and the respondent No.1 and the respondent
No.1 has admitted correctness of the matters

¶29

recorded in the Consent Terms.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

REVN 24014.odt

¶32

5.Resultantly, parties having lawfully
compounded the matter. The Judgment and order
of conviction recorded by the trial Court and
confirmed by the Appellate Court referred here

¶33

in above are hereby quashed & set aside. The
applicant stands acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The bail bond, surety
bond, if any, entered by the applicant stands

¶34

hereby canceled. Parties to adhere to the
Consent Terms tendered. The applicant is
directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/ to the
High Court Legal Aid Committee as per the
guide lines in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu
(Supra). Having due regard to the fact that
the transaction was not business transaction
but hand loan taken by the truck driver and as
such he is not in a position to pay the costs
as directed in the said Judgment.

¶35

6.The Revision Application is disposed

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

REVN 24014.odt

¶38

of in the aforesaid Consent Terms. Parties to
bear their own costs. The respondent No.1 is
entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,000/
deposited by the applicant in the Appellate
Court.

¶39

(P.D.KODE, J.)

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure v. Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakil Gulab Sambhapure v. Nandkumar Dhondiram Kothavale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Somnath Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Pratap Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaypal Appa Karnale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogesh Maruti Linge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daji Satyawan Shelake and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Sitaram Gavankar and Ors. Vs T. Vijayan and Ors.