Bombay High Court
Madhukar Sadashiv Wankhede vs Gruh Nirman Ltd. Thr. Its Branch Manager ... on 3 January, 2019
Author: M.G. Giratkar
Bench: M.G. Giratkar
1 revn200.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 200 OF 2011
Shri Madhukar Sadashiv Wankhede,
aged about 50 years, Occupation
Service, r/o Qtr. No. 8/13/2, Defence
Colony, Ambajhari Colony, Nagpur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Gruh Finance Limited, through its
Branch Manager/Attorney, Lad
House 610, Opposite Yeshwant
Stadium, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Dhantoli, Nagpur. ...
RESPONDENTS
....
Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for the applicant.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri H.D. Dubey, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.2/State.
....
CORAM : M.G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATED : 03RD JANUARY, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 03:20:57 :::
2 revn200.11
2. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as accused) obtained the loan from respondent No.1/Gruh Finance Limited. The loan was to be repaid on 09th May, 2015. The accused could not repay the said loan. He had issued cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to respondent No.1. Cheque was bounced and, therefore, Criminal Case No. 3033 of 2005 was filed before the JMFC, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned trial Court, after recording the evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer SI for three months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further suffer SI for one month. The accused challenged the said judgment of conviction before the Sessions Court, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2007. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 07 th December, 2011. Hence, the present revision.
3. Heard Shri Vishal Anand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri H.D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/State. Though respondent No.1 is duly served, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1.
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 03:20:57 :::
3 revn200.11
4. Shri Vishal Anand, learned Counsel for the applicant has filed No Due Letter on record. The same is marked as "X" for identification. He has submitted that the accused has paid Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 has issued No Due Letter.
5. In view of the satisfaction of the loan amount, No Due Letter is issued by respondent No.1. Looking to further development after the conviction, the accused is entitled for leniency. Hence, the following order.
The revision is partly allowed. Conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintained. However, sentence is modified. The applicant is directed to pay amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) and the same is paid to respondent No.1/Complainant. Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of as such.
JUDGE ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 03:20:57 ::: 4 revn200.11 *rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 03:20:57 :::