1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2113 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRI.WP NOS. 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118 & 2119 OF 2010 Mohanjit Singh .... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents --- Mr. H.S.S. Murthy i/b Mr. Ashutosh Singh for the Petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State in Writ Petition Nos. 2113/2010 to 2118/2010 Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State in Writ Petition No. 2119/2010. Mr. Jatin P. Shah for Respondent No.2. ---- CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23rd July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. All these Writ Petitions are being decided by this common order as the issue involved in all these Petitions is identical. 2. By these Petitions, Petitioner is challenging the order 2 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal appeal filed by him against the judgment and order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Sessions Judge has directed the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount before before the learned Magistrate. 3. Brief facts are a sunder:- 4. Respondent No.2 herein filed seven complaints before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These seven complaints were filed on account of dishonour of seven cheques issued by two Directors of the Company. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted all the accused including the present Petitioner and directed the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs 13 lacs in all these cases towards compensation. Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was admitted. However, while admitting the appeal, a condition was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge that the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate would be suspended upon the Petitioner depositing an amount of about Rs 13 lacs in all these seven cases. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner has filed these seven Petitions in this Court. 5. Mr. Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court ought to 3 have directed the Petitioner to deposit a reasonable amount. He submitted that the Petitioner is dependent on his father and, as such, he is not in a position to deposit Rs 13 lacs and, at the most, the Petitioner would be in a position to deposit 10% of the amount. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is neither liable nor he could be made answerable for dishonour of the cheques which were issued by the original accused Nos. 2 and 4, firstly, because he is not a signatory to the said cheques and, secondly, he is not liable to pay the said amount. It is submitted that, as a result of the said condition, great hardship is caused to the Petitioner and, as a result, the Petitioner would not be in a position to prosecute the appeal on merits, unless the impugned order is set aside. In support of the said submissions he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.1 He has invited my attention to various paragraphs in the said judgment. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 – original complainant has submitted that the Respondent No.2 had filed a suit in this Court and in the said suit, Consent Terms were filed by the parties and that the Petitioner herein was one of the signatories to the said Consent Terms and the Defendants in the said suit had agreed to pay to the Plaintiff therein the amount mentioned in the Consent Terms. He submitted that the parties had specifically agreed that the Defendants would pay an amount of Rs 1,25,00,000/- by 10 cheques. 1 2007 CRI L.J. 2417 4 When the said cheques were deposited, they were dishonoured and, therefore, the said complaints were filed. He further submitted that after the order was passed by the Trial Court, the present Petitioner did not take any steps for a period of seven months and only after he was arrested and released on bail, appeal was filed in the Sessions Court. He submitted that, in fact, the Petitioner was planning to go abroad and the respondents were in a position to apprehend the Petitioner in time. He then invited my attention to the Consent Terms and decree which was passed in terms of the Consent Terms by the Division Bench of this Court. He submitted that so far as the other accused are concerned, they were directed by the Sessions Court to deposit an amount of almost 33% of the total decretal amount. He submitted that the decree was passed in terms of the Consent Terms dated 10/04/2006 and more that four years had passed even then the said amount was not paid. He then submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is dependent upon his father is incorrect in view of the specific averments made in the Petition that the Petitioner is a businessman and is often required to go out of country. He also relied upon the judgment in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd & Anr.1 and submitted that, in fact, the Apex Court had held that while admitting the appeal, the Appellate Court could direct the appellant to deposit a reasonable amount. He then invited my attention to total 9 judgments out of which seven judgments are passed by various learned Single 1 2007 CRI.L.J. 2417 5 Judges of this Court, one judgment by Delhi High Court and one by the Apex Court wherein direction was given to deposit the amount ranging between 25% to 50%. He submitted that, in fact, in this case the Sessions Court had directed the Petitioner to deposit only 20% of the amount. He, therefore, submitted that the lower Appellate Court had asked the Petitioner to deposit a very reasonable amount. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 at length, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. In Dillip S. Dahanukar (supra), the Apex Court, in terms, held that the amount directed to be deposited must be a reasonable amount. In 9 cases on which the reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, the Court had directed to deposit the amount ranging between 25% to 50%. The said nine cases are as under:- Sr.No. Particulars of the nine judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 1. Unreported judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 6th October, 2008 in Writ Petition No.905 of 2008 in the case of Dr. Pankaj Gandhi v/s. State of Maharashtra. 2. Bombay High Court Judgment reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 544 in the case of Maheshwar D. Kale v/s. Capt. Atul Wasudeo. 6 3. Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 7th June, 2007 in Writ Petition No.836 of 2007 in the case of Ganesh @ Raju v/s. Kamal P. Sotewar. 4. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2001(1) ALL MR (Cri.) 852 in the case of Stanny Felix Pinto v/s. Jangid Builders P. Ltd 5. Judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri.) Journal 3 in the case of Vishnu Promoters V/s Sushila Singhal 6 Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 29th July 2008 in Writ Petition No. 150 of 2008 in the case of Rajendra S. Kamlapurkar v/s. Rupee Co-op. Bank Ltd and Anr. 7 Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench, Nagpur) in Writ Petition No.323 of 2006 dated 10th January, 2007. 8. Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 2501 in the case of Suresh K. Dole vs. Satupada Credit CSL. 9. Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 28th January 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.4088 of 2007 in the case of Navshakti Combines vs. State of Maharashtra. 8. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, in my view, direction given by the Sessions Court to the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the said amount cannot be said to be unreasonable. Apart from that, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner is one of the signatories to the Consent Terms and he is, therefore, jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount mentioned in the Consent Terms. It is not now open for the Petitioner to say that since he is not a signatory to the said cheques he is not liable to pay the said amount. Apart from that, the conduct of the Petitioner also disentitles him from making a grievance about undue 7 hardship which is likely to be caused to him. The appeal itself was filed after seven months after the Trial Court had passed the judgment and order. Only after the Petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail, he has preferred this appeal in the Sessions court. In para 4 of the Petitions the Petitioner has stated as under”- “4. The Petitioner states that he is a businessman and often required to go out of country. The Petitioner is a member of HUF and as HUF has vast assets in and around at Delhi. .............” The contention of the Petitioner, therefore, that he is dependent upon his father also does not appear to be true. 9. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, no case is made out by the Petitioner for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. Petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. However, time to deposit the said amount is extended by a period of eight weeks from today. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 8