Allowed

Suresh Rakhmaji Kute v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Nov 2014WP/89/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal writ petition allowed. Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act, seeking halt on further deposit requirement during appeal. Court held existing deposit sufficient and directed Sessions Court to expedite appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; further deposit directed to stop; amount paid deemed sufficient; Sessions Court directed to decide appeal within three months.

Suresh Rakhmaji Kute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp-89-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

rpa

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2014

¶6

Suresh Rakhmaji Kute .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Niranjan S. Mundargi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.S.S. Kaushik, A.P.P. for Respondent – State. Mr.R.S. Gamare, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATED : NOVEMBER 3, 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Rule.

¶12

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

¶13

3 The petitioner was prosecuted on a complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

¶14

Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act', for short). After holding a trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan

¶15

1/4

¶16

wp-89-14

¶17

found the petitioner guilty and convicted him. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month and was directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) to the respondent no.2. The petitioner has filed an Appeal challenging the order convicting him. The Appeal has been admitted by the Court of Sessions and is still pending. The Court of Sessions by an order dated 22^nd August, 2013 suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner inter-alia on the condition 'to deposit Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lac)'. The petitioner has pursuant to this order deposited a total sum of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Five Thousand) in the trial Court. The petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that he need not be made to deposit any further amount and that his Appeal be heard and decided on merits.

¶18

4 I have considered the matter. The amount of the cheque in question was Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand). Compensation has been awarded double the amount of the said cheque. The Appeal has already been admitted. Deposit of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Five Thousand) has already been made by the petitioner during the pendency of his Appeal. In my opinion, when the Appeal has been admitted and is yet to be decided,

¶19

2/4

¶20

wp-89-14

¶21

deposit of an Amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Five Thousand) towards the part payment of the compensation, is sufficient and reasonable. Insisting of further deposit during the pendency of the Appeal would not be reasonable.

¶22

5 Interestingly, though the Court of Sessions has directed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac) to be deposited, it has not specified any time within which such deposit is required to be made. In my opinion, therefore, it would proper to direct the Court of Sessions to hear and decide the Appeal itself expeditiously without insisting on any further deposits to be made by the petitioner during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶23

6 The petition is allowed.

¶24

7 The impugned order, in so far as it directs deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac) to be made, is set aside. It is declared that the deposit of an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Five Thousand) already made by the petitioner shall be sufficient deposit for the purpose of suspension of the substantive sentence during the pendency of the Appeal filed by him.

¶25

3/4

¶26

wp-89-14

¶27

8 The Court of Sessions shall hear and dispose of the

¶28

Appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.

¶29

9 Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

10 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶32

4/4

Suresh Rakhmaji Kute v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rakhmaji Kute v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Nitendra Chandrasen Bhatia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Jawad Mohd Ali Razi Vs Zainab Jawab Razi and Ors.

Nandlal M. Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Appukuttan Ramachandran Pillai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Narsimhan Krishnan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.