Remanded

Govind Ramvilas Biyani v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Oct 2023WP/1051/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside an interim compensation order requiring a 20% deposit as a condition for sentence suspension under Section 389 CrPC. The court directed the Appellate Court to re-examine whether the case warranted an exception, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

The interim compensation order directing a Rs. 4,50,000 deposit as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence is set aside to the extent of such deposit requirement.

Govind Ramvilas Biyani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

WP-1051-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2023

¶4

Govind Ramvilas Biyani

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶8

2. Prakash Dattopant Gorkar ...Respondents

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. W. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. V. P. Savant, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2.

¶11

***

¶12

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶13

DATE:OCTOBER 20, 2023

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1.This Petition takes exception to the order

¶16

passed by learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 48/2023 filed against the judgment and order of

¶17

conviction passed by learned Magistrate in S.C.C. No.
296/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 138

¶18

of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I.
Act’).

¶19

2.Petitioner is convict for the offence

¶20

punishable under Section 138 of NI Act pursuant to the
order passed by learned Magistrate dated 30.05.2023 in

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

WP-1051-2023.odt

¶23

SCC No. 296/2015. The said order of conviction came to
be challenged in Appeal before the Sessions Court.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the
Petitioner/Appellant to deposit Rs. 4,50,000/- i.e. 20%
amount out of Rs. 22,50,000/- directed to be paid
towards compensation. The said direction issued by the
Appellate Court is by way of interim compensation.

¶24

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
ofJamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd and Others, Special Leave

¶25

to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4927/2023. By referring to the
said judgment, it is submitted that before directing an
order to pay interim compensation for the purpose of
suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court is required to
consider whether the case falls in exception or not to
make it condition precedent. According to him, the
impugned order does not show said aspect being taken
into consideration by Appellate Court and hence, order
impugned deserves interference.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

WP-1051-2023.odt

¶28

4.Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Orig.

¶29

Complainant opposed the said contention by relying on
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case ofSurinder
Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender
Gandhi, Criminal Appeal Nos. 917-944 of 2019. It is his
submission that the direction to deposit 20% amount of
compensation as interim compensation as condition
precedent for suspension of sentence is legal and
valid.

¶30

5.Perusal of the impugned order passed below
Exh. 4 & 5 directing payment of deposit of Rs.
4,50,000/- i.e., 20% amount of total compensation
directed by trial Court is made condition precedent for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 of CrPC. Order
does not show that the Appellate Court has taken into
consideration the fact as to whether the case falls in
exception or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) after taking into consideration
judgment in case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) has
held that even if there is no plea taken by Appellant
that an exception may be made in the case and the
requirement of deposit of minimum 20% amount be

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

WP-1051-2023.odt

¶33

dispensed with, it is for the Appellate Court to
consider whether the case falls in exception or not.
The said observation is made by keeping in mind the
provisions of Section 389 CrPC which normally applies
in grant of relief of suspension of sentence without
any condition.

¶34

6.In view of above, the present case is squarely
covered by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Jamboo Bhandari (supra). Since the learned Appellate
Court has not taken into consideration as to whether
this is an exceptional case which warrant amount of
suspension of sentence without imposing condition of
deposit of 20% fine/compensation amount. Impugned
order, therefore, cannot sustain.

¶35

7.Following the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court,

¶36

the order impugned dated 01.07.2023 is set aside to the
extent of deposit of Rs. 4,50,000/- by way of interim
compensation as condition precedent for suspension of
sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed
is directed to decide the said issue afresh in the
light of observations made in the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). The Appellate

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

WP-1051-2023.odt

¶39

Court to take decision on the said issue within a

¶40

period of one month from the date of passing of this
order.

¶41

8.In view of above, Writ Petition stands
disposed of.

¶42

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶43

Malani

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Govind Ramvilas Biyani v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ramvilas Biyani v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Sanjeevkumar Dinkar Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sachin Ramesh Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivraj Nagorao Dhulshete Vs Suman @ Sushma W/O. Shivraj Dhulshete and Another

Dipak Santosh Bhore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramkishan Lalu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Walmik Bhanudas Ragde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra