Allowed

Smita Nitin Sheth v. Shashi Prabhat Jhunjhuwala

Bombay HC7 May 2024IA/392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim applications by an applicant convicted for cheque-bounce offences under Section 138 NI Act were disposed of after she deposited funds and the complainants consented to withdrawal of accepted amounts. The court set aside convictions on payment of Rs.50,000 per case to the Legal Aid Fund.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence are set aside. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.50,000 in every case in the High Court Legal Aid Fund within four weeks.

Smita Nitin Sheth Vs Shashi Prabhat Jhunjhuwala — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR

¶2

501-IA-392-2024.doc

¶3

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2024.05.08 18:04:00 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2024 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2024

¶7

Mrs. Smita Nitin Sheth ...Applicant

¶8

vs.

¶9

Mrs. Shashi Prabhat Jhunjhunwala and Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.393 OF 2024 IN

¶11

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2024

¶12

Mrs. Smita Nitin Sheth ...Applicant

¶13

vs.

¶14

Prabhat Jhunjhunwala and Anr. ...Respondents

¶15

*****

¶16

Mr. Vivek Babar a/w Mr. Darshan Advocate for Applicant. Ashar, Mr. Ajinkya Kadam i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. Mr. Chaitanya Pendse: Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. H.J. Dedhia: APP for State.

¶17

¶18

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 7^th MAY 2024

¶19

P. C. :-

¶20

1. Taken on board by way of praecipe.

¶21

2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant- Accused and learned

1/4

Pallavi

501-IA-392-2024.doc

Advocate for the Respondent – complainant.

¶26

3. There were two complaints filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 64^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused No.1 is a Partnership Firm and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are described as Partners. By the several judgments, the trial Court convicted Accused No.3 for the said offence and the sentence is till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.6,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

¶27

4. The Appeals preferred by the Applicant were dismissed on 23^rd November 2023. That is why, these two Applications.

¶28

5. Applicant states that she has deposited the following amounts:-

¶29

(i) Rs. 1,20,000/- before the Appellate Court in each case.

¶30

(ii) Rs.1,20,000/- as directed by this Court in each case in this Court.

¶31

6. Now, the parties have settled the dispute and they have entered into consent terms separatel;y in individual application. They are taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘ A ’ in each matter. They are signed

¶32

by Applicant, Respondent No.1 and their respective counsel. Both the

2/4

Pallavi

501-IA-392-2024.doc

parties are present. They admit the contents. Mutually they have agreed that Applicant will pay Rs.6,00,000/- in the individual case to the complainant. The break-up is as follows:-

¶37

a. Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- in every case deposited as mentioned above. The Respondent No.1 has applied for withdrawal. Applicant consents for the withdrawal.

¶38

b. Rs.3,60,000/- remaining amount is paid by way of two Demand Drafts.

¶39

7. Respondent consents for setting aside the conviction. As per the observations of the Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.¹ , accused has to pay 15% of the cheque amount. It comes to Rs.90,000/- on the basis of Rs.6,00,000/-. There is a prayer for reducing the amount because the Applicant is woman and her husband has expired. Let her deposit Rs.50,000/- in every case in the account of “High Court Legal Aid Fund”. In view of above, the following order is passed:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Consent Terms are recorded.

¶42

2010(5) SCC 663

3/4

Pallavi

501-IA-392-2024.doc

(ii) The conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Case

¶47

No.2734/SS/2013 and Criminal Case No.2735/SS/2013

¶48

for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 64^th Court, Esplanade Court, Mumbai and confirmed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.1025 of 2019 on 23^rd November 2023 are set aside.

¶49

(iii) Let Applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in

¶50

the account of “High Court Legal Aid Fund” in every . case within a period of four weeks from today

¶51

(iv) Respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the amount

¶52

deposited as mentioned in body of the order.

¶53

(v) Revision application and Interim Applications are

¶54

. disposed of in above terms

¶55

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶56

4/4

¶57

Pallavi

Smita Nitin Sheth v. Shashi Prabhat Jhunjhuwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smita Nitin Sheth v. Shashi Prabhat Jhunjhuwala

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

Ashish Anand Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Bhagoji Gawade Vs State of Maharashtra

Prakash Bhagoji Gawade Vs State of Maharashtra through Tilak Nagar Police Station

Smita Nitin Sheth Vs Prabhat Jhunjhunwala

Kaluram Krishna Kadav Vs State of Maharashtra

Indo Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Kamal Binani Vs Vinita International and Ors.