Allowed

Devendra Babulal Rao v. Shaikh Salim Jamil Ahmed and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jun 2017REVN/190/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

high court allowed criminal revision application on consent terms in a cheque dishonour case, set aside conviction and sentence, and ordered payment of costs to legal services authority.

What did the court decide?

revision allowed on consent terms offese compoundable cc no 156/SS/2009 convicted set aside applicant acquitted withdraw prosecution undertake compl terms pay costs 5000 to mhs legal services authorit

Devendra Babulal Rao Vs Shaikh Salim Jamil Ahmed and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

33.revn.190.14(ct).odt

¶2

¶3

sbw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2014

¶6

Devendra Babulal Rao … Applicant vs. Shaikh Salim Jamil Ahmed & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Singh for the Applicant. Mr. Shirodkar Ateet for Respondent no.1 Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the State.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

By this revision application, the applicant seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 29th March, 2014 passed by the Sessions Court dismissing Criminal Appeal no.172 of 2011 and thereby upholding the conviction of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court, Mazgaon, on 20th June, 2011 in Criminal Case no.156/SS/2009.

¶10

Vide order dated 19th June, 2014 this Court recorded that the applicant stands convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and has been directed to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had already been deposited in trial Court and he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within four weeks.

¶11

On 18th August, 2016 this Court recorded that the applicant had

¶12

33.revn.190.14(ct).odt

¶13

¶14

deposited the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the sentence was suspended. The matter was initially referred to Mediation and the Mediator had after holding meetings found that the parties were willing to settle the matter. In the circumstances, today the parties have tendered consent terms. Consent terms are signed by the applicant and respondent no.1.

¶15

The consent terms provide for payment of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent no.1. In view of the fact that the matter is now settled and the offence is compoundable, the above revision application can be disposed of by passing the following order:-

¶16

(i) Revision application is allowed in terms of consent terms.

¶17

(ii) Offence being compoundable, C.C.no.156/SS/2009 and the conviction and sentence is set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶18

(iii) Undertakings contained in the consent terms are accepted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall pay costs fixed at Rs.5000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week from the date this order is uploaded. If costs are not paid the impugned order will revive without further orders of this Court.

¶20

(v) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶21

(vi) Stand over to 10th July, 2017 for compliance.

Devendra Babulal Rao v. Shaikh Salim Jamil Ahmed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Babulal Rao v. Shaikh Salim Jamil Ahmed 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

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs the State of Maharashtraa and Anr.

Vinod Ashok Bhoite Vs Akshara Vinod Bhoite and Anr.

Lilesh Suryakant Kalsekar Vs Shobha Pol and Anr.

Ravi Bharat Chavan through His Father Bharat Santu Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Aditya Enterprises through Prop. Adity Tejas Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jayesh Arjun Bhandari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra