Disposed

Sadika Murad Ali Shaha v. Sabira Nizam Solkar

Bombay HC23 Sept 2024REVN/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with sentence of fine and compensation. Applicant argued trial was vitiated by recording evidence before different Magistrates and that the imposed fine exceeded the statutory cap. Court permitted complainant to withdraw half of the deposited amount on undertaking and adjourned for detailed hearing.

What did the court decide?

Complainant permitted to withdraw 50% of Rs.5,21,910 deposited, with accrued interest, on furnishing an undertaking to return it as directed; matter stood over to 19 August 2024.

Sadika Murad Ali Shaha vs Sabira Nizam Solkar — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

14-Revn-37-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHANPRASHANTDHURI PRASHANTDHURIDate:2024.07.24 12:26:29 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2024

¶5

Sadika Murad Ali Shaha ...Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Sabira Nizam Solkar and another ...Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2024

¶10

*****

¶11

Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar alongwith	Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Mohit Dalvi :-
Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia alongwith	Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Shubhada Salvi :-
Mr. Ashok Gawai :-	APP for Respondent No.2-State.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

¶14

DATE : 22^nd JULY 2024

¶15

P. C. :-

¶16

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant/convicted

¶17

accused and the learned Advocate for the Respondent-Complainant.

¶18

The Court of JMFC, Debrukh has convicted the Applicant

¶19

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence is till rising of the Court and fine of

1/4

Kanchan Dhuri

14-Revn-37-2024.doc

Rs.6,70,000/-. Out of that, Rs.6,55,910/- is to be paid to the Complainant towards compensation as per Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The cheque was issued towards handloan. It was denied by the Applicant. Complainant examined witnesses to show how she has raised the money. This fact is disputed by the Applicant and the Complainant’s source of income is her maintenance and there is order of the Court which is placed on record by the Applicant. All these contentions were rejected by the learned Magistrate. When she filed an Appeal, it was dismissed.

¶24

My attention is invited to the observations in paragraph 22 of the Appellate Court Judgment. He has observed, “no reasons were assigned or no specific order was passed while converting the trial. Trial is not vitiated.” According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant following are the submissions :

¶25

(i) Evidence was recorded before different Magistrates and case could not be completed before one Judge. This is violation of provision of Section 326(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

(ii) Proviso to Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

¶27

puts a restraint on the Magistrate to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/-.

2/4

Kanchan Dhuri

14-Revn-37-2024.doc

According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant these issues needs

¶32

to be decided by the Revisional Court whereas the learned Advocate for the Complainant, there was no application made on behalf of the Accused to recall the witness as contemplated under Section 326(2) of

¶33

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

There is no doubt that the Accused has deposited entire

¶35

amount of fine. It is as follows :-

¶36

(i) Rs.1,34,000/- deposited before the Appellate Court (which was withdrawn also). Let the learned Advocate for the Complainant to verify.

¶37

(ii) An amount of Rs.5,21,910/- is deposited before the Civil Court, Devrukh. Notice is issued to the Complainant to withdraw the amount.

¶38

Today, detailed hearing could not be conducted. Both the

¶39

sides needs to be heard on the above issues.

¶40

So at this juncture, the Complainant may be permitted to withdraw 50% of Rs.5,21,910/-. Hence, the order :

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(a) At this juncture, the Complainant is permitted to withdraw

3/4

Kanchan Dhuri

14-Revn-37-2024.doc

50% of Rs.5,21,910/- alongwith accrued interest, if any on a condition of furnishing an undertaking that she will return the amount alongwith interest as directed by this Court.

¶47

Stand over to 19^th August 2024 . To be listed ‘High on

Board’ .

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

4/4

Kanchan Dhuri

Sadika Murad Ali Shaha v. Sabira Nizam Solkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadika Murad Ali Shaha v. Sabira Nizam Solkar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yashashree Niranjan Tiwari Vs Niranjan Deepak Tiwari

Yash Kalpesh Sanghavi vs Chanchalben Harilal Sanghavi

Aishwarya Sitaram Bhakare vs Swapnal Sitaram Bhakare (Decased)

Purushottam Sanabhai Patel vs Wipro Limited

Sunanda Avinash Parte vs Pravin Avinash Parte

Shubhangi Subhash Palshetkar vs Rajkumar Omprakash Sharma and Ors.