VIRBHADRA BHUJANGRAO SWAMIversusMANIK VITHALRAO KATMANDE

2026:BHC-AUG:44224


                                                 *1*                      35revn123o21


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2021
                            MANIK VITHALRAO KATMANDE
                                      VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                               ...
                Shri Bhapkar S.L., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri A.A.A. Khan, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                Shri Swami Mahesh Chandrashekhar a/w Ms. Vaishali S. Swami,
                Advocates for Respondent No.2/ complainant.
                                               ...

                                          WITH
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4309 OF 2025
                                     IN REVN/123/2021

                             VIRBHADRA BHUJANGRAO SWAMI
                                        VERSUS
                              MANIK VITHALRAO KATMANDE
                                          ...


                                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                    DATE : 28 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.            Heard.


                2.            By this revision application, the applicant/ accused

                is challenging the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed

                by the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Appeal

                No.13/2016 thereby, dismissing the said appeal and maintaining
                                  *2*                     35revn123o21


the judgment and order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned

JMFC, Osmanabad, in SCC No.914/2012 whereby, the applicant

came to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The learned JMFC under the impugned

judgment, was pleased to sentence the applicant to suffer simple

imprisonment for 30 days. In addition to imprisonment, the

applicant is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.4.30 lacs to

the complainant.


3.           It is pointed out that the applicant has already

deposited the aforesaid compensation amount. It is stated that

Rs.75,000/- were deposited before the Appellate Court and the

remaining amount is deposited before this Court.


4.           It is also stated that the applicant is aged 80 years.

Since the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of

compensation, therefore, no purpose would be served by

directing to suffer sentence at this stage.


5.           After hearing the learned advocates appearing for

the respective parties, I have gone through the record and the

impugned judgments. It is evident that the learned Trial Court,

while passing the impugned judgment, has found that the charge
                                 *3*                       35revn123o21


against the applicant has been proved and therefore, convicted

the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Even in the appeal, the Appellate

Court, after going through the evidence and the findings recorded

by the Trial Court, was pleased to maintain the judgment passed

by the learned Trial Court.


6.           After perusal of the evidence and the judgments of

the Courts below, I find that the scope of revisional jurisdiction

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very

limited and that is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since both

the judgments have been passed by correctly applying the

principles of law and by appreciating evidence in proper

perspective, therefore, I find no merit in the instant revision

application. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the

concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, particularly the fact that the applicant has already deposited

the entire amount of compensation and is stated to be aged about

80 years, the substantive sentence of imprisonment deserves to

be modified. Hence, I pass the following order:-
                                       *4*                     35revn123o21


                                     ORDER


      (a)         The conviction of the applicant for the offence

      punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

      as recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the

      learned Appellate Court, is hereby maintained. However, the

      substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

      applicant is modified.


      (b)         The applicant shall not be required to undergo the

      substantive sentence of imprisonment. The compensation amount

      of Rs.4,30,000/- already deposited by the applicant shall be paid

      to the original complainant.


      (c)         The original complainant is permitted to withdraw

      the amount deposited by the applicant along with accrued

      interest.


      (d)         The Criminal Revision Application as well as the

      Criminal Application are, accordingly, disposed of.




kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )