Allowed

Ramnath Mahalsekar. v. Sanjay Kumar Bagla.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2015CRIR/9/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice C. V. Bhadang allowed the revision application for compounding under Section 138 NI Act following payment of compensation and legal services fee. The conviction sentence was quashed, complaint dismissed, and petitioner acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for compounding. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled.

Ramnath Mahalsekar. Vs Sanjay Kumar Bagla. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CRIR No. 9/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2015

¶5

RAMNATH MAHALSEKAR ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus SANJAY KUMAR BAGLA ... Respondent ***

¶7

Shri Sudesh Walawaikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Shri Ajit R. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2015

¶10

P.C:

¶11

By this revision application, the petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay a compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The said conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal.

¶12

CRIR No. 9/2015

¶13

¶14

The petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 31/2015, inter alia for permission to compound the offence by following the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. , reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 . Although, the respondent had initially opposed the application, by filing a reply dated 13.02.2015, it appears, subsequent to that, the petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs.13,00,000/-, before this Court towards compensation which is payable to the respondent. The petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). In that view of the matter, Shri Kantak, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the respondent has no objection for compounding the offence, subject to the rival contentions being kept open in the civil suit pending between the parties.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the compensatory aspect has to take precedence in the matter of sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶16

CRIR No. 9/2015

¶17

¶18

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the consent on behalf of the respondent, for compounding the offence and further, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has deposited the amount of compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- and also that the petitioner has deposited an additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with State Legal Services Authority, permission is granted for compounding the offence.

¶19

In such circumstances, the following order is passed:

¶20

(a) Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 31/2015 is allowed.

¶21

(b) The complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

¶22

(c) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2014, passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 181/OA/NI/2012/C, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 26.11.2014, in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2014, are hereby set aside.

¶23

CRIR No. 9/2015

¶24

¶25

(d) The petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶26

(e) The Bail Bonds of the petitioner stand cancelled.

¶27

(f) It is made clear that this order shall not affect the rival contention of the parties before the Civil Court, which are expressly kept open.

¶28

(g) The revision application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶30

Ramnath Mahalsekar. v. Sanjay Kumar Bagla.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Mahalsekar. v. Sanjay Kumar Bagla.

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

Kiran D. Samant, Proprietor of Laxmi Enterprises. Vs Mr. Pandurang Bhosle and Anr.

Mr.Girish Sangappa Jaggal. Vs State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Mr.Cristo J. Joseph Vaz, Presently Lodged at Sub Jail at Mapusa, Thr. Smt. Kristprakashini R. J., Vs Union of India, Represented by Officers in Charge, Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.

Anju Timblo., Vs Dilip Timblo and 11 Ors.

Anju Timblo., Vs Dilip Timblo and 11 Ors.

Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd., Vs Dilip Timblo and 11 Ors.