IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2008. Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.266 OF 2008. Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2008. Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.268 OF 2008. Shri Suresh Shankardas Mulani. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Jehangir Khajotia, for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. I.M. Vohra, i/b. Bipin Joshi, for the Respondent No.2, in all the Petitions. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No.1., in all the Petitions. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the second Respondent. - 2 - The second Respondent filed four different complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Petitioner. The said four complaints resulted in conviction of the Petitioner. Appeals were preferred by the Petitioner before the Sessions Court. In the Appeals, an interim order was passed on 11th September 2007 directing that the substantive sentence shall remain suspended upon the Petitioner depositing 50% of the compensation amount payable. On 10th March 2008, this Court granted ad-interim relief, subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the amount of compensation in each case within a period of four weeks from that date. The Petitioner did not comply with the said ad-interim order. On 11th July 2008, this Court extended the time to deposit 25% amount till 15th July 2008. It is stated that accordingly the amount has been deposited. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip Dahanukar, the Petitioner can be directed to deposit only a reasonable amount which he is in a position to pay. He submitted that it is impossible for the Petitioner - 3 - to pay 50% of the compensation amount. He submitted that if the amount fixed by the Sessions Court is not reduced, it will amount to depriving the Petitioner of right of preferring an appeal. He therefore, submitted that the impugned orders may be modified by directing the Petitioner to pay 25% of the compensation amount. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent-Complainant opposed the Petition by pointing out that the impugned order was passed on 11th September 2007 and the Petitioner could not deposit even 25% of the amount within a time granted by this Court on 10th March 2008. He submitted that the 25% amount was ultimately deposited in July 2008. He placed reliance on what is stated in the reply filed to the Petition. 3. I have considered the submissions. It is true that the Appellate Court in such a case can direct deposit of a reasonable amount. What is the reasonable amount ultimately depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Appellate Court has also to see whether the Petitioner/accused is in a position to pay the amount. - 4 - 4. In paragraph no.3 of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed to the Petition, the second Respondent has stated thus :- " I respectfully submit that the Petitioner has in affidavit filed before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, submitted that he is Chairman of Limited Company namely Bright Star Data Services Private Limited. I say that the Petitioner is owner and occupying substantially big premises at a prestigious area in South Mumbai as it is apparent from the cause title that the Petitioner is residing at 28, Neel Kamal, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026. I say that the Petitioner is having British Passport No.740156205, which he has produced in the Trial Court. I say that the Passport reveals that the Petitioner is regularly traveling abroad. It is further learnt that the Petitioner is traveling in Business Class." The aforesaid assertions have not been denied by the - 5 - Petitioner. Considering what is stated in the reply of the second Respondent, it cannot be said that the direction to deposit 50% of the compensation amount is unreasonable. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As stated earlier, even 25% of the amount was deposited by the Petitioner in July 2007 though the order dated 10th March 2008 passed by this Court records that the Petitioner himself offered to deposit 25% of the compensation amount. Though no case is made out for interference, a reasonable time deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount as he has already deposited a part of the amount. 5. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The Writ Petitions are rejected with no orders as to costs. (2) Time of six weeks is granted to the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount in terms of impugned orders passed by the Sessions Court. - 6 - (3) Parties and concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]