Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.