Disposed

Sushma Suresh Parab v. State Of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024REVN/501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act by Metropolitan Magistrate confirmed in appeal; applicant sought revision. Court issued notice to complainant and suspended the six-month imprisonment sentence subject to bonds and deposit conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment suspended subject to bond of Rs.15,000/- and deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- before trial Magistrate.

Sushma Suresh Parab vs State Of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

13-REVN-501-2024+IA(ST)-19057-2024+IA(ST)-19059-2024.(E-FILE)doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SATISH SANGAR RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2024.10.07 15:09:50 +0530

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.19057 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.19059 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2024

Sushma Suresh Parab

...Applicant

v/s.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

*****

¶10

Mr.Sunil Kumar Tiwari:-	Advocate for Applicant.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia:-	APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Jayesh Bhavsar:-	Respondent No.2 inperson.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 3^rd OCTOBER 2024

¶13

P. C. :-

¶14

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2024

¶15

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant – convicted Accused.

¶16

The Respondent No.2 is present. He has submitted that he is suffering from eye problem.

¶17

There is a conviction by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on

¶18

Satish Sangar

¶19

1/3

¶20

13-REVN-501-2024+IA(ST)-19057-2024+IA(ST)-19059-2024.(E-FILE)doc

¶21

2^nd May 2018. The offence is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“ NI Act ”). The sentence is simple imprisonment for six (6) months and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh). Out of that, Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Thousand) is to be paid to the Complainant.

¶22

The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) is deposited during pendency of the Appeal.

¶23

Issue notice to Respondent No.2-Complainant before Admission th

¶24

returnable on 28 November 2024 .

¶25

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.19057 OF 2024

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Sentence is suspended as follows:-

¶28

(i) The substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43^rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai dated 2^nd May 2018 in C.C. No.26/SS/2006 and confirmed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – Borivali Division, Dindoshi vide order dated 6^th July 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2018 is suspended during pendency of the Revision Application subject to following conditions:-

¶29

(a) On furnishing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) before the trial Magistrate.

¶30

Satish Sangar

¶31

2/3

¶32

13-REVN-501-2024+IA(ST)-19057-2024+IA(ST)-19059-2024.(E-FILE)doc

¶33

(b) To deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) before the trial Magistrate within two (2) weeks.

¶34

(c) The Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the amount along with interest, if any, subject to furnishing an undertaking that the amount will be returned along with interest, if directed by this Court.

¶35

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶37

Satish Sangar

¶38

3/3

Sushma Suresh Parab v. State Of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Suresh Parab v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs Farheen Mauzammil Shaikh and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Pune vs Manisha Subhash Katwal and Ors.

weston decor private limited vs Arun N Bidwai

Bablu Rajendra Vaniyar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai vs Vaishali Vishwanath Patil and Ors.