w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Midas Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Another v/s Sun Developer & Another

    Crl. Revision Application No. 662 of 2018, Crl Application No. 655 of 2018

    Decided On, 22 December 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay


    For the Applicants: Amin Solkar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vinod Chate, APP.

Judgment Text

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. On 18.12.2018, this matter was taken on board on praecipe moved by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The complainant was present on his own. However, this fact was not mentioned in the order dated 18.12.2018. Hence, it is clarified that the complainant was present in person pursuant to the notice given by the learned Counsel for th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e applicant/accused.

2. Yesterday, the matter was listed for admission on supplementary board. The matter was called out and at that time, Mr. Solkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused, was absent and hence, the matter was kept back at the request of his junior colleague. The original complainant was present. The junior of Mr. Solakar took it that the matter was fixed at 3 p.m. and Mr.Solkar appeared at 3 p.m. However, the complainant, who was present in the Court from 11 a.m., mentioned the matter at 2 p.m. and as Mr. Solkar was not present, the matter was adjourned to 18th January, 2019. Mr. Solkar prayed urgency and requested that the matter be preponed and hence, it is listed today. The respondent/original complainant is accordingly present in person today.

3. The complainant submits that he is not served with the papers. Mr. Solkar submits that he will serve the papers to the complainant today itself. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that there is a grave urgency as pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2014 filed by the present applicant, the learned Judge has directed that the applicant/accused shall forthwith surrender before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for undergoing the awarded sentence. He points out that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, where the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held the applicant/accused guilty under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 3 months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,72,00,000/- to the complainant within 3 months and i/d to suffer S.I. for 3 months. This order was passed on 7.4.2014. The learned Counsel submits that he has deposited Rs. 50 lakh till today pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 4.7.2014. He submits that against the said order, he has filed this revision. He also submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and, therefore, prays that the order directing the applicant/accused to surrender forthwith is to be stayed till next date.

4. The complainant appearing in person seeks time to go through the matter and informs that his Counsel is not available.

5. Perused the impugned order convicting the applicant/accused. In view of the facts and the submissions of the learned Counsel, in my view, the following order is appropriate and is accordingly passed:


(i) The applicant/accused is directed to deposit in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, 50% of the amount of Rs. 2,72,00,000/-, which approximately comes to Rs. 1,36,00,000/- (Rupees one crore thirty-six lakh only). The applicant/accused shall accordingly deposit Rs. 86 lakh in two instalments within one month i.e., Rs. 43 lakh on or before 5.1.2019 and the remaining Rs. 43 lakh on or before 19.1.2019.

(ii) Till the next date, no coercive steps to be taken against the applicant/accused and Clause (2) of the order dated 22.11.2018 directing the accused to surrender forthwith before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, is hereby stayed till the next date.

Ordered accordingly

Already A Member?