Sudam Manik Shewale vs Karunakar Narayan Shetty — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

Sudam Manik Shewale vs Karunakar Narayan Shetty — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): the complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 6.1 lakh, subject to the applicant filing an undertaking that, if the revision petition is decided against him, he shall repay the amount so withdrawn by the complainant along with interest at the prevailing bank rate within eight weeks from the date of such decision; the interim application is accordingly disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the original complainant is entitled to interim withdrawal/release of the amount deposited by the accused in this Court towards part satisfaction of the compensation directed by the Courts below, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Application. +1 more

Court's answer

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court having concurrently recorded a finding of guilt against the accused and directed payment of compensation to the complainant, unless such conviction and direction are set aside in revision, the complainant is entitled to seek withdrawal of the deposited amount.

Ratio / Principle

The objections pertaining to the legality of the conviction and the maintainability of the complaint go to the root of the matter, are directly connected with the merits of the revision petition, and cannot be conclusively adjudicated while considering the present interim application, which is limited in scope.

Key takeaways

Balancing the rights of both parties, the complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall file an undertaking stating that if the revision petition is decided against him, he shall repay the amount so withdrawn by the complainant along with interest at the prevailing bank rate within eight weeks from the date of that decision.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S. 138 — Interim Application No. 919 of 2025 in Criminal Revision Application No. 248 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Amit Borkar, J., 23-09-2025): The original complainant sought release of Rs. 6.1 lakh deposited by the accused towards part satisfaction of the Rs. 15.5 lakh compensation directed by the Courts below following their concurrent findings of guilt. The accused objected that the complaint was barred by limitation, that both Courts below had rendered perverse findings while recording conviction, that the statutory notice contemplated under Section 138 was never served, and pleaded illiteracy. Held: such objections go to the root of the matter, are directly connected with the merits of the revision petition, and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the limited-scope interim application; unless the conviction and compensation direction are set aside in revision, the complainant is entitled to seek withdrawal of the deposit. Withdrawal was permitted subject to the applicant filing an undertaking that, if the revision petition is decided against him, he shall repay the withdrawn amount with interest at the prevailing bank rate within eight weeks from the date of that decision. Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of.

42-revn-248-2024.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.919 OF 2025

IN

SHABNOOR AYUB

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.248 OF 2024

PATHAN

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.09.23 19:09:41 +0530

Sudam Manik Shewale … Applicant V/s. Karunakar Narayan Shetty … Respondent

Mr. Aditya S. Sawant for applicant/original complainant (Appointed as Legal-Aid).

Mr. Sushant Arora a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Adhav i/b LR & Associates for the respondent/ accused.

MS. Rajashree V. Newton, APP for the State – respondent.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2025

P.C.:

The original complainant, in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has filed an interim application seeking release of the amount deposited by the accused in this Court.

The said application is strongly opposed by the applicant/original accused. It is his contention that the complaint itself was barred by limitation and that both the Courts below have rendered perverse findings while recording conviction. It is further urged by him that the statutory notice contemplated under Section 138 of the Act was never served upon him. On this ground, he

1

42-revn-248-2024.doc

argues that the very foundation of the complaint is defective and no valid conviction can be said to have been recorded. He also submits that he is an illiterate person, unable to comprehend the proceedings, and therefore withdrawal of the deposited amount at this stage would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The objections raised by the accused pertain to the legality of the conviction and the maintainability of the complaint. These issues go to the root of the matter and are directly connected with the merits of the revision petition. Therefore, they cannot be conclusively adjudicated while considering the present interim application, which is limited in scope. At this stage, what is material is that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently recorded a finding of guilt against the accused and have directed payment of compensation to the complainant. Unless such conviction and direction are set aside in revision, the complainant is entitled to seek withdrawal of the deposited amount.

The record shows that the applicant has deposited Rs.6.1 lakh towards part satisfaction of the compensation of Rs.15.5 lakh, as directed by the Courts below. The complainant seeks interim withdrawal of the same. In balancing the rights of both parties, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the accused as well, in case the revision petition succeeds.

Hence, the complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall

2

42-revn-248-2024.doc

file an undertaking before this Court. The undertaking shall state that if the revision petition is decided against him, he shall repay the amount so withdrawn by the complainant along with interest at the prevailing bank rate within eight weeks from the date of such decision.

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and

(b).

The interim application is accordingly disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3