Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with one month imprisonment and Rs. 5,00,000 compensation; parties settled via consent terms and bail was granted. With no one appearing thereafter, the revision application is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2017 ALONGWITH REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2017
Pradip Sanatkumar Dixit ...Applicant vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
None for the Applicant
None for the Respondent No. 2
Mr. H. J. Dedhia – APP for the Respondent-State
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 12th JANUARY 2024
P. C. :-
1. There is conviction of simple imprisonment for one month and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed before the Appellate Court.
2. Initially, writ petition was filed. Lateron, it is converted into Revision application. On 19/07/2017, this Court has taken note of the settlement in between parties. The consent terms were signed by wife of the Petitioner/convicted accused and
that time the Applicant was in jail. On the basis of the
Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJ YELKAR KSHITIJ Date: YELKAR 2024.01.1613:09:43 +0530
1/2
Seema
settlement, bail was granted to the Applicant.
3. There is a direction to the Applicant to sign the consent terms. The copy of the Consent terms dated 19/07/2017 is on record.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner and for Respondent No. 2 have signed it and wife of the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 is also signed it. There are certain terms about payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of installments. Thereafter, there are not effective orders. In fact what will be the effect of the consent terms on the conviction needs to be looked into. However, since then no one has appeared. Even their respective Advocates are not present. The consent terms is evidence of the settlement.
5. So I find no reason to keep this revision application pending. Hence revision application is disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
2/2
Seema
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradip Sanatkumar Dixit
The State of Maharashtra
S. M. Modak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
