- 1 - gr.345.339svmmucc rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.345 of 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Hemalata N.Engineering . Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.348 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal ... Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering ..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.351 OF 2011 - 2 - gr.345.339svmmucc Hemant K.Chikal . Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.353 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra - 3 - gr.345.339svmmucc 2.Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents with CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.339/2011 Hemant K.Chikal .. Applicant vs 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Hemalata N.Engineering .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Marvadi i.b.Mr.Ashok Dubey for Applicant in all matters Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for State Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for Respondent no.2 in all matters CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 13 th September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Revision Applicants and learned counsel for the Respondents in respective matters. 2. A long drawn litigation involving total 30 cases is oscillating between the parties under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is a bunch of 10 cases for disposal waiting - 4 - gr.345.339svmmucc for the fruits of the orders recorded by the Court for the cheques issued in the year 1999 and 2000. 3. By the common judgment the learned 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai on 28.12.2007 convicted the Revision Applicants and they have accepted the same. However, the Complainant challenged the said order feeling that order suffers from an inadequate sentence. The learned Sessions Court upon hearing the parties directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to re-hear the parties on the quantum of sentence. Thereafter, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the conviction on 14.7.2010 enhancing the sentence. This order was question by the Revision Applicant in Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2010. He lost in the said Criminal Appeal and other groups by order dated 17.6.2011 hence present Revisions. 4. Another feature in the matter is, being - 5 - gr.345.339svmmucc dissatisfied with the orders of remand, Revision Applicants have preferred Criminal Writ Petition in group of matters. One of them is Writ Petition No.1982 of 2009. By an order dated 16.2.2010 this Court did not find perversity in the impugned order. The Petitions were dismissed. Like wise, Petitions moved by the original Complainant-Respondent herein were also dismissed. The learned Judge was directed to decide the matter expeditiously within three months and then followed by the above referred Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 14.7.2010 Appellate order is dated 17.6.2011. 5. The learned counsel while extensively arguing the matter invited my attention to the cross-examination of the Complainant and certain text thereof as re-produced by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai while recording conviction on 28.12.2007. - 6 - gr.345.339svmmucc 6. Answers in the cross-examination by the complainant will not pollute and create complex of the matter, as cheques were in discharge of legally enforceable liability and even if at some point of time the Revision Applicant has paid interest for certain other borrowed sums due to her father, it will not defuse and deflate the claims of Complainant as payee. 7. Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant also referred further to the cross-examination of the Complainant in C.C.No.1029/S/03 dated 16.11.2005. Indeed it is out of context as cheque numbers referred therein are not forming part of the present controversy. As per record Archana Enterprises may be belonging to the relations of the Revision Applicant. However, any admission recorded in respect of those cheques will not be by diluting the assertions of the Complainant in her evidence. 8. Other features advanced by the learned - 7 - gr.345.339svmmucc counsel for the Revision Applicant is, that even if he has not challenged the order of recording conviction, he has a right of audience in the Appeal preferred by the Complainant seeking enhancement to challenge conviction. (Though I have persistently asked both of them). Learned counsel for both sides did not venture to produce order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which reversed the order of inadequate sentence dated 28.12.2007. He has indeed submitted to the conviction and audience could be on fine/sentence only. Such fine was paid, pursuant to order dated 28.12.2007. The Revision Applicant was heard on the point of enhancement of sentence. 9. It therefore, cannot be said that this point was again required to be entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while hearing Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2010 which was basically revolving to the order dated 14.07.2010 of the Metropolitan Magistrate The - 8 - gr.345.339svmmucc learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 8 of the judgment (Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2010) has even dealt with the judgment dated 28.12.2007 and rightly so therefore, I do not see merits in the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revision Applicant. 10. No other legal point is involved in the Revision Application. I do not see any perversity in the order recorded by the Courts. 11. Learned counsel submits that the Revision Applicant is 75 years old, he has already been in custody for 7 days and sending him into further custody to undergo sentence would be traversity. The amounts paid in the aforesaid Petition needs be adjusted. Ultimately the compensation directed by the Courts including fine shall be paid within a reasonable period. Learned counsel for the original Complainant refutes such assertions and says that if the Revision Applicant is 75 years old or more, that - 9 - gr.345.339svmmucc does not mean he should avoid jail. He owns huge immovable properties. 12. Considering the above facts of the matter, Revision Applications are dismissed. However, the Revision Applicant is permitted to pay the total cheque amount of Rs.4,36,000/- and fine amount of Rs.9,04,000/- total Rs.13,40,000/- within 15 days (Fifteen days). Whatever amount so far the Revision Applicants has paid shall be credited and balance to be complied within said 15 days. Additionally, the Revision Application shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the original Complainant. Order of sentence in all the matters is set aside. Conviction is maintained. K.U.CHANDIWAL, J