Allowed

Sharad Pundlik Palav v. Shamji Narshi Charla Director of M/S. Charla Estate and Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2017REVN/352/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision application in a cheating/cheque-bounce case where the applicant sought relief. The court quashed the conviction and sentence upon receipt of settlement affidavits from the parties, acquitted the applicant, and ordered release from jail.

What did the court decide?

Conviction, sentence, June 14, 2007 order, CC no.439/SS/2008 and Criminal Appeal no.508 of 2010 quashed; Applicant acquitted and released from jail.

Sharad Pundlik Palav Vs Shamji Narshi Charla Director of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

905.revn.352.17.doc

¶2

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2017

¶4

WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.324 OF 2017

¶6

Sharad Pundalik Palav … Applicant vs. Shamji Narshi Charla Director of M/s. Charla Estate & Financial Management Pvt.& Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Dr.Santosh Raje for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATED : 6 th JULY, 2017

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Respondent no.1 is present. He was the original complainant. It appears that the applicant was convicted in offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to 4 months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs.16 lakhs. A sum of Rs.8,20,000/- has already been deposited. The impugned order provides for adjustment against the payment of compensation. Respondent who is present in Court confirms having withdrawn/received the amount of Rs.8,20,000/- which is referred to in the impugned order dated 14 th June, 2007.

¶12

The offence being compoundable, today the applicant has tendered

¶13

905.revn.352.17.doc

¶14

affidavits of the applicant-wife and the respondent who are both present in person. The respondent no.1. (original complainant) has agreed to the terms of the settlement his affidavit and has accepted the terms proposed on behalf of the applicant. The parties have confirmed the contents of the affidavit and submitted that this revision application may be allowed. I therefore pass the following order:-

¶15

(i) Application is allowed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and as recorded in the affidavits dated 6th July, 2017.

¶16

(ii) In view of the offence being compoundable, conviction of sentence of the applicant vide orders dated 4th September, 2010 in C.C. no.439/SS/2008 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, and has confirmed a revision in Criminal Appeal no.508 of 2010 are quashed and set aside.

¶17

(iii) The petitioner is acquitted of the offence and shall be released from jail.

¶18

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

¶19

(v) Parties including the jail authorities to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

905.revn.352.17.doc

¶21

(vi) In view of the disposal of criminal revision application, the criminal application no.324 of 2017 does not survive and the same is also disposed

¶22

of.

¶23

(vi) Stand over to 27th July for recording compliance.

¶24

(A. K. MENON, J.)

Sharad Pundlik Palav v. Shamji Narshi Charla Director of M/S. Charla Estate and Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Pundlik Palav v. Shamji Narshi Charla Director of M/S. Charla Estate and Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. 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

Mohammed Shamshad Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Ganpati Todkar and Anr. Vs Inspector of Police and Anr.

Stonemann Royale Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Babu Parmar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Vasant Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Munish Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra