bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1582 & 1583 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1582 & 1583 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1582 & 1583 OF 2008 M/s.Amrut Vishnu Nalawade ... Petitioner (in both petitions) v/s 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Mahavir Traders ... Respondents (in both petitions) Mr.D.V.Sutar for the petitioner in both petitions. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the State in both petitions. Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi for Resp.No.2 in both petitions. ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRI.REVN. CRI.REVN. CRI.REVN. APPLICATION NO. 374 & 375 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 374 & 375 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 374 & 375 OF 2008 Mahavir Traders ... Applicant (in both revisions) v/s 1. M/s.Amrut Vishnu Nalawade 2. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents (in both revisions) Mrs.Madhavi Tavanandi for the applicant in both revisions. Mr.D.V.Sutar for the respondent No.1. Smt.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. A.V. POTDAR, J. A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 2 1. All these proceedings are being disposed of by one common order. All these proceedings arise out of the orders passed below Exh.6 in Criminal Appeal Nos.121 of 2008 and 125 of 2008, dated 1.7.2008. 2. There is a challenge to the order passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, by which he has put a condition precedent to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. On depositing this amount only the order of conviction to be suspended. 3. My attention is drawn towards the order passed by my learned Brother Judge Shri A.S.Oka, dated 5.8.2008 by which the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and on condition that if the petitioner deposits this amount in the Court, then the substantive sentence to be suspended. It is informed to me by both sides that the petitioners have deposited this amount in the Court. 4. During the course of the argument, reliance is placed by the advocate for the petitioner on the judgment reported in 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 769, in 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 769, in 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 769, in the the the matter of Dilip Dahanukar v/s Kotak Mahindra Ltd. matter of Dilip Dahanukar v/s Kotak Mahindra Ltd. matter of Dilip Dahanukar v/s Kotak Mahindra Ltd. My attention is drawn towards the Head Note (C) of which 3 the observation find place in para 68 wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that:- "The question may also have to be considered from the angle that the learned trial Judge thought it fit to impose a fine of Rs.25,000/- only upon the Company. If that be so, a question would arise as to whether an amount of compensation for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs should have been directed to be paid by the Chairman of the Company. We feel that it is not." Then it is opined by the Apex Court as under:- (i) In a case of this nature, sub-section (2) of section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted even when appellant was directed to pay compensation; (ii) The appellate Court, however, while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is a constitutional and statutory right; (iii) The amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum; (iv) The Court, while fixing such amount, must have regard to all relevant factors including the one referred to in sub-section (5) of section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (v) No unreasonable amount of compensation can be directed to be paid." Bearing in mind these guide-lines made by the Apex Court in the judgment cited above, already the petitioners in both the petitions have deposited substantial 4 amount towards the compensation. I feel now that nothing remains in the petitions. Bearing in mind these guide-lines framed by the Apex Court in the judgment cited above (supra), already the petitioners in both the petitions have deposited the substantial amount towards the compensation. 5. Hence, both writ petitions succeed and are disposed of in terms of prayer clause 9(a) on condition of payment of Rs.50,000/- in each petition, which amount is already deposited. 6. The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur is hereby directed to hear and dispose of the Criminal Appeal Nos.121 of 2008 and 125 of 2008 within a period of 10 weeks but on or before 30th April, 2009. 7. The respondent No.1 in the revision applications as well as the respondent No.2 in the writ petitions is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner on condition subject to the decision in the criminal appeals and on giving the regular/usual undertaking. 8. In view of the above, both the criminal revision applications also stand disposed of. 5 Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.