Bombay High Court
PUNDALIK SHANTARAM PRABHUversusSACHIN KHANDEKAR AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The High Court modified the suspension order, allowing staggered payment of the compensation and abeyance of the warrant, thereby exercising its discretion to relax the original condition.
Summary
The applicant, Pundalik Shantaram Prabhu, had been granted suspension of his sentence on the condition that he deposit 50% of a Rs.30,00,000 compensation, but he failed to make the payment and sought modification of the order. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his application for modification, prompting a criminal revision before the High Court. The applicant argued that his financial condition made the 50% deposit impossible and proposed a staggered payment plan. The High Court, after considering the circumstances, accepted the applicant's undertaking to pay Rs.10,00,000 within three weeks and Rs.5,00,000 within six months, and kept the non‑bailable warrant in abeyance for six months. The court modified the earlier orders accordingly and clarified that no further time would be granted, disposing of the application.
Issues considered
- What extent can a court modify a suspension‑of‑sentence order that conditions release on payment of compensation?
- Whether the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge in requiring 50% payment is subject to judicial review in light of the applicant's financial hardship.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- suspension of sentence
- compensation payment
- modification of order
- judicial discretion
- financial hardship
- non‑bailable warrant
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1969
25 CRIR 174 2026
Vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2026
PUNDALIK SHANTARAM PRABHU ... APPLICANT
Versus
SACHIN KHANDEKAR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
Ms. Prithvi Bandekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms Sibani Singh, Advocate holding for Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional
Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM:- AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
DATED :- 1st October, 2026
P.C.
Heard Ms. Bandekar, learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. It is submitted that, by an order dated 23.6.2026, the Applicant’s
prayer for suspension of sentence was allowed by the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, subject to deposit of 50% of the
compensation amount. The compensation amount, as per the
judgment and order, is Rs. 30,00,000/-. It is submitted that the
cheque amount is Rs. 20,00,000/-. Admittedly, the Applicant has not
deposited 50% of the compensation amount before the Appellate
Court and has filed an application seeking modification of the earlier
order. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge also dismissed the
application seeking modification of the order to deposit 50% of the
compensation amount. The orders passed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge are impugned by way of this Application.
Page 1 of 3
1st October, 2026
25 CRIR 174 2026
3. I do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the orders passed by
the Appellate Court. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has
exercised its discretion judiciously.
4. Ms. Bandekar on behalf of the Applicant submitted that, having
regard to the financial condition of the Applicant, it would be
difficult for the Applicant to deposit 50% of the compensation
amount. She therefore submitted that the Applicant shall deposit Rs.
10,00,000/- within three weeks from today and a further amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- within six months from today. She submitted that the
statement made on behalf of the Applicant be accepted as an
undertaking to this Court.
5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in
the interest of justice, the statement made on behalf of the Applicant
is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.
6. The Applicant, as undertaken, shall deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- within a
period of three weeks from today and a further amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- within six months from today. The non-bailable
warrant issued against the Applicant be kept in abeyance only for a
period of six months from today.
7. In view thereof, the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge on 23.6.2026 and 1.8.2026 are modified to the above extent. It
is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the Applicant
to comply with this order.
8. The Applicant further undertakes to comply with all the
requirements and conditions that may be imposed by the learned
Page 2 of 3
1st October, 2026
25 CRIR 174 2026
Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the appeal filed by the
Applicant. The Applicant’s undertaking is accepted.
9. The Application stands disposed of in the above terms.
10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
Page 3 of 3
Date: 03/10/2026 17:31:24
1st October, 2026
Checking your session…