Dismissed

Manik Shridhar Gabale v. Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2014WP/2794/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting a revision application. The Court held the petition to be frivolous, noting the Magistrate was legally obligated to recover the fine under Section 138 NI Act via land revenue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed summarily without issuing notice to the respondent.

Manik Shridhar Gabale Vs Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane Deshmane

25.wp.2794-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2794 OF 2014

¶6

Manik Shridhar Gabale Versus Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and another.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. P.G. Kathane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP, for the State.

¶10

CORAM : M. L. TAHALIYANI, J.

¶11

DATE : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶14

learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed against the order dismissing the

¶16

revision application of the petitioner. The Revision Application before the Sessions Court impugned the order passed by the J.M.F.C., Jaysingpur on 1.3.2013 directing recovery of fine amount by way of land revenue.

1 / 3

Deshmane

25.wp.2794-14.doc

The petitioner and the Lawyer were absent and, therefore, the Revision Application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur. The Writ Petition challenges the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur.

¶22

In my opinion the present Writ Petition is frivolous inasmuch the petitioner had been convicted by the Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. His appeal has been dismissed and his revision application has also been dismissed by the High Court. The learned Magistrate has initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner as he has failed to pay the fine amount. Since the petitioner has failed to pay the fine amount, the learned Magistrate was under the obligation to take necessary steps to recover the fine as land revenue. Therefore, in my opinion there is nothing wrong in the order of Magistrate.

¶23

In the ordinary course, I would have issued notice to the respondent and would have granted adinterim relief. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case where there is no other

2 / 3

Deshmane

25.wp.2794-14.doc

option left to the Magistrate, it is impossible for this Court also to give any relief to the petitioner. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that it is not possible to give any relief in the present Petition, there is no point in issuing notice to the respondent. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

3 / 3

Manik Shridhar Gabale v. Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Shridhar Gabale v. Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Herbas Vs Sujit R. Halarankar and Anr.

M/S. Plus Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs G. v. Ravu Kumar and Anr.

Mani Jagdish Pilley Vs Ishwarchand Lalchand Jain and Anr.

Nutan Ajit Lokhande Vs Sanjit Chandrasen Lokhande and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Manashi Mangesh Shaha

Gajanan Laxman Fonde Vs Dilip Raghunath Patil and Anr.