Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Walmik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Walmik vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Aurangabad Decided Jan 28, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1105072

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai Aurangabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision Application No.310 of 2009
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 – Comparative Citation: 2013 ALL MR (CRI) 1286

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Walmik

Advocate Shri. Bhauthankar

Respondent

State of Maharashtra and Another

Excerpt

negotiable instruments act, 1881 - section 138 – comparative citation: 2013 all mr (cri) 1286.....of the arrears of loan which the applicant had obtained from respondent no.2. the applicant is stated to be aged about more than 70 years and, therefore, the submission is made that the applicant be released on the payment of fine instead of imposing the substantive sentence of imprisonment. 4. i have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent no.2. it is not disputed before me that the applicant is aged more than 70 years. it is also not disputed before me that the amount of rs.15,000/- awarded by the trial court as compensation to the complainant, which represented the value of the cheque, has been received by the complainant. looking to the age of the applicant and fact that the complainant has already received the value of the cheque and since the learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the submission advanced before me by the learned counsel for the applicant, according to me interest of justice would be subserved by setting aside the sentenced of imprisonment awarded by the trial court. accordingly, this criminal revision application is partly allowed. conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act is confirmed. the sentence awarded by the trial court i.e. s.i. of 3 months is hereby quashed and set aside while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court as well as the direction of the trial court for payment of compensation. criminal revision application is accordingly partly allowed.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

By consent Criminal Revision Application is admitted and heard finally.

2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant challenging the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 25th August, 2006 in S.C.C. No.1648 of 1998, convicting the applicant for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month, with a direction that on realisation of the fine, an amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid to the complainant. The aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in Appeal by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani by judgment dated 31st October, 2009 in Criminal Appeal NO.66 of 2006.

3. Shri Bhauthankar, learned counsel for the Applicant has urged before me that indisputedly the complainant has received amount of Rs. 15,000/- as directed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the Applicant further states that the Applicant does not challenge the judgment of the two Courts below on merits but restricts the submission in respect of the sentence which is imposed on the applicant. It is urged before me that the Applicant was prosecuted and was convicted in S.C.C. No.1248 of 1996. Both the Appeals came to be dismissed on the same day and the Applicant has already undergone 23 days of imprisonment in the other mater. It is further urged before me that the cheque which was issued by the applicant was towards the discharge of the arrears of loan which the applicant had obtained from Respondent No.2. The Applicant is stated to be aged about more than 70 years and, therefore, the submission is made that the applicant be released on the payment of fine instead of imposing the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. It is not disputed before me that the applicant is aged more than 70 years. It is also not disputed before me that the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the trial Court as compensation to the complainant, which represented the value of the cheque, has been received by the complainant. Looking to the age of the applicant and fact that the complainant has already received the value of the cheque and since the learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the submission advanced before me by the learned counsel for the Applicant, according to me interest of justice would be subserved by setting aside the sentenced of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. The sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. S.I. of 3 months is hereby quashed and set aside while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court as well as the direction of the trial Court for payment of compensation. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly partly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial