1109crra167.09.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 167 OF 2009 CHANDRASHEKHAR VISHWANATH MUDLIAR VS. MADHUKAR NATTHUJI BUCHE & THE STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Court's or Judge's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Yogesh Nayyar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. DM Kale, APP for respondent No.2. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 11TH SEPT., 2009. P. C. : The Application (APPR No. 46/09) for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the order is dispensed with. Application stands disposed of. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant at the stage of admission. 2. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Special Court under the Negotiable Instruments Act, at Nagpur, by judgment and order dated 09/4/2009 convicted the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered that compensation of Rs. 5 lac should be paid to the complainant. The cheque amount in this case was Rs. 3 lac. The applicant challenged the said order of conviction by filing the revision application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Nagpur and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 01/8/2009 ordered that the applicant should deposit a sum of Rs. 2.50 lac. This amount of Rs. 2.50 lac turns out to 50% of the total amount of compensation granted in favour of the complainant. Thereafter the applicant filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge being application dated 01/9/2009 and prayed for extension of time of one month. 1109crra167.09.odt 2/3 That application was heard on merits and by order dated 01/9/2009, period of additional ten days was granted and today happens to be a last day. 3. By this application, the applicant has challenged order dated 01/8/2009 by which the applicant is ordered to deposit Rs. 2,50 lac. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the amount fixed to pay by the applicant ought to have been reasonable and he should have ordered to deposit lesser amount. In the alternative he submitted that the applicant could have been permitted to furnish Bank guarantee or security to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. It is required to be noted that the cheque amount is for a sum of Rs. 3 lac and compensation granted is for a sum of Rs. 5 lac. Keeping in view the relative figures and the fact that the applicant is convicted, it is seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised discretion conferred upon him in a proper manner and he ordered 50% of the amount of total compensation which figured to Rs. 2.50 lac which is less than the amount covered by the cheque. 6. If at all the revision of the applicant is dismissed on merits, the interest of the complainant is secured at least to the extent of Rs. 2.50 lac which figure is not more than the amount covered by the cheque. In my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed reasonable and proper order and no interference is required in the said order dated 01/8/2009. 7. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, after order dated 01/8/2009 is passed, the applicant did not challenge the said order forthwith and had filed an application after a period of one moth and prayed for extension of time. That application for extension of time was filed at the stage when the time to deposit 1109crra167.09.odt 3/3 Rs. 2.50 lac was over. This will mean that by filing of application dated 01/9/2009, the applicant has submitted to the orders dated 01/8/2009. Even that application has been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and a period of ten days was granted. In my view, the applicant has been treated in a proper manner by the learned Additional Session Judge, proper indulgence has been shown, discretion was exercised in proper manner, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 01/8/2009 which is the subject matter of this application. Hence, the application is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. Application is dismissed. JUDGE wwl