Venkatesh Agency Through Its Proprietor Kalpana Dnyaneshwar Alias Sanjay Harale v. Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corpo Thr Divi Manager Vishwanath Ramchandra Dudhalkar

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 49 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2025 Venkatesh Agency Through Its Proprietor Kalpana Dnyaneshwar Alias Sanjay Harale

VERSUS

Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corpo Thr Divi Manager Vishwanath Ramchandra Dudhalkar AND 50 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 615 OF 2025 AND 51 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2025 AND 52 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 617 OF 2025 AND 53 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2025 AND 54 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2025 Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil P. Piratwad, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 4th AUGUST 2025.

PC :- 1.

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Piratwad, the learned Advocate for the Respondent. Petition is taken up

( 2 ) for final disposal at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties.

2.

The petitions are arising out of orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respective appeals suspending sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court in respective Special Civil Suit. The details of the cheques are as under:- Date of cheque Cheque No.

Amount SCC No.

Appeal 30.07.2013 000043 10,40,000/- 27/2014 16/2025 25.09.2013 000089 1,00,000/- 60/2014 17/2025 16.11.2013 000027 20,00,000/- 61/2014 18/2025 08.01.2014 000071 22,00,000/- 320/2014 19/2025 06.08.2014 000070 22,00,000/- 321/2014 20/2025 20.12.2013 000068 24,00,000/- 322/2014 21/2025 3.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 27th March 2025 has suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner, subject to depositing 20% of the amount of compensation

( 3 ) awarded by the trial Court in Section 138 of the N. I. Act cases. 4.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the said orders stating that the amount of all these petitions is in the tune of Rs.99,40,000/-. The Court has awarded double the compensation and the amount is about two crores. Though it is tried to be argued on the merit that no case is made out for conviction, this Court finds that this aspect need not be gone into by this Court as the substantive appeals are pending before trial Court. 5.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner, thereafter, addressed this Court on merits of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. He submits that while passing the orders under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Appellate Court has to record some reasons showing the application of its mind when directing to deposit the amount. He submits that, in the present case, no application of mind is seen. He relied upon the judgments in the cases of Muskan Enterprises and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors.1 and Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M. MANU/SC/1431/2024

( 4 ) P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And Ors.2 6.

In both these judgments, the learned Hon'ble Apex Court held that the orders under Sections 138 and 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are discretionary. However, such orders must show application of mind.

7.

The learned Advocate for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the Court has rightly passed the order. The petitioner is convicted after holding a trial wherein it is proved that cheques were issued for legally enforceable liability. 8.

Considering the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, this Court finds that the order is too short to disclose proper application of mind. It was necessary for the Court to show some reason as to why the order is passed directing to deposit the amount. 9.

Considering above, this Court finds that there is no application of MANU/SC/1005/2023

( 5 ) mind appearing on the face of order. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. All the petitions are allowed. Condition of deposit of amount towards suspension of sentence is set aside. 10.

The learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani is requested to decide the appeal within six months from today.

11.

With this, writ petitions stand disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]