Disposed

Priti Prashant Bhingade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2019REVN/4/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under section 138 NI Act, the High Court stayed the Sessions Judge's order vacating a prior stay, directing the accused to deposit specified amounts in two installments with directions to appear on fixed dates.

What did the court decide?

Stay of impugned order for six weeks; direction to deposit Rs. 1,25,000 on 25th Jan 2019 and Rs. 2,00,000 on 28th Feb 2019.

Priti Prashant Bhingade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

918-revn-4-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2019

¶4

Priti Prashant Bhingarde ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal for the Applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.

¶8

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 11 JANUARY 2019

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 28^th November, 2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karad thereby vacating the stay granted on 7^th August, 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶11

The applicant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that

¶13

the applicant/accused is a lady. He further submits that the

¶14

Trupti Page 1 of 3

¶15

918-revn-4-2019.doc

¶16

applicant/accused is ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, only some time is sought.

¶17

The complainant i.e., respondent No.2 is not served. This is a first date. On perusal of the impugned order, I am of the view that this Revision Application can be disposed of at this stage by passing an order specifically directing the applicant/accused to make the payment and for temporary period, the impugned order can be stayed.

¶18

In view of the above submissions and as the applicant/accused is a mother of a girl child, the order dated 28^th November, 2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karad is hereby stayed for a period of six weeks from today with following directions :

¶19

(i) An amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- is to be deposited by the applicant/accused on or before 25^th January, 2019 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karad. The applicant/accused to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad on 25^th January, 2019;

¶20

Trupti Page 2 of 3

¶21

918-revn-4-2019.doc

¶22

(ii) The remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be deposited by the applicant/accused on or before 28^th February, 2019 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karad. The applicant/accused to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad on 1^st March 2019.

¶23

With these directions, Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.

¶24

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶25

Trupti Page 3 of 3

Priti Prashant Bhingade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Prashant Bhingade 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

Shri Mahesh Bhiku Rathod . Vs the State .

Vilas Shridhar Bhabhal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Chandulal Shah Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Prabhu Industries Prop. Shobha Shankar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan Barumal Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabhu Industries Prop. Shobha Shankar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.