Disposed

P.S. Krishnamurthy v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Nov 2022APPR/92/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the complainant to withdraw compensated amounts deposited at trial and appellate courts, subject to a four-week undertaking to reimburse the funds plus interest if the applicant succeeds in the pending revision appeal.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw Rs. 63,125/- and Rs. 1.89 lakh with interest, conditional upon undertaking to reimburse if revision succeeds.

P.S. Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

48-appr92-2014++.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2014

¶5

IM

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2013

¶7

P.S. Krishnamurthy…Applicant

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra …Respondents

¶10

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2013 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2013

¶11

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.11.14 14:54:09 +0530

¶12

Sudhakar S. Machha…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.…Respondents

¶13

Mr. Manish Bafna with Mr. Aditya Dwivedi i/by A.S.
Khan & Associates for the applicant in REVN.

¶14

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for respondent no.1/State.

¶15

Mr. Sagar Talekar for respondent no.2 in REVN and
applicant in APPR/92/2014.

¶16

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶17

DATED:NOVEMBER 11, 2022

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

1.The applicant in Criminal Application No.92 of 2014 is
complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶20

¶21

48-appr92-2014++.doc

¶22

1881 seeking withdrawal of the amount deposited by the accused.

¶23

2.The learned Magistrate convicted the accused by directing
him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,52,500/- as compensation and further
directed to suffer simple imprisonment of four (4) months. The
said order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Criminal revision against the order of conviction and sentence is
pending before this Court.

¶24

3.The accused has deposited an amount of Rs. 63,125/- before
the trial court and Rs. 1,89,375/- before this Court.

¶25

4.Taking into consideration the nature of dispute and the fact
that the accused has been convicted by both the Courts below, the
applicant has made out a case for grant of permission to withdraw
the amount of compensation. Hence, following order:

¶26

The complainant (applicant in Criminal Application No.92 of
2014) is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 63,125/-
deposited before the trial Court and Rs. 1,89,375/- deposited
before this Court along with accrued interest on both the amounts,
subject to furnishing an undertaking without four weeks from
today that in case the applicant succeeds in the revision
application, the complainant shall reimburse the entire amount
withdrawn along with interest at the prevalent bank rate till the
date of reimbursement.

¶27

5. Criminal Application No.92 of 2014 is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶28

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶29

P.S. Krishnamurthy v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S. Krishnamurthy v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Dilip @ Delip Vasantrao Bagul Vs M/S Prefeb Engineering Private Limited through Amit Pangam and Anr.

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Sanjao Dabre Vs State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Tukaram Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikant Sahebrao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunal Behari Valecha Vs Lavina Kunal Valecha (Alias Lavina Jagdish Mahnubani) and Anr.