Disposed

Raju Shamrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Feb 2014WP/63/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench held petitioner cannot relitigate deposit sufficiency after undertaking compliance to appellate court. Ordered petitioner to pay balance Rs. 75,000 within two months and appellate court to expedite hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to pay balance Rs. 75,000 within two months. Appellate court to decide appeal within three months.

Raju Shamrao Kharat Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 63 of 2014

¶4

Raju s/o. Shamrao Kharat, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Renuka Apartment, 2nd Floor, Ahinsa Nagar, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra.

¶7

Rukmanbai w/o. Keshav Rathod, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Plot No.1, Lane No.5, Bhanudas Nagar, Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Abhishek G. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P.N. Muley, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Mr. S.S. Barahate, Advocate, holding for Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate, for the respondent no.2.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY 2014

¶11

(2)

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Heard the learned respective Counsel for the parties.

¶14

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

¶15

The basic grievance of the petitioner is that, the amount of deposit as directed by the Court of Sessions, as a pre-condition for suspending the substantive sentence, pending the appeal, is too high and excessive. It is submitted that demanding a deposit to the extent of 50 % of the cheque amount as and by way of a pre-condition to suspend the substantive sentence, was contrary to the view taken in similar cases by the superior courts.

¶16

Though there appears to be some substance in this, I find that the petitioner did not canvass this point before the appellate court. On the contrary, when he was taken in custody by the appellate court, he undertook to deposit the remaining amount within 15 days.

¶17

The undertaking given by the petitioner to the appellate court cannot be lightly ignored and the petitioner cannot now be permitted to raise a contention that the order requiring the deposit itself was wrong.

¶18

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, I pass the following order :

¶19

(3)

¶20

The petitioner shall pay the balance amount i.e. an amount of Rs. 75,000/- [Rupees seventy five thousand], within a period of two months from today, by depositing the same in the appellate court, unless appeal itself is finally decided in the meantime.

¶21

The appellate court shall expedite hearing of the appeal and endeavour to dispose it of, within a period of three months from today.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

bgp/63criwp

Raju Shamrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Shamrao Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sahebrao Bhaginath Zalte and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Taherabano Nurulhuda Ansari and Others Vs Nurulhuda Abdul Rashid Ansari

Sindhubai Bhagwat Shingade Vs Chimaji Kondaji Wakte and Another

Sambhaji Balaji Dhembre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahebrao Appa Ingale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Appa Ingale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others