Bombay High Court
S. SRIKANTHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S M MODAK
Holding
The court disposed of the revision petition, refusing further adjournment, but indicated that a restoration application may be entertained.
Summary
The applicant, S. Srikanth, sought revision of his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had resulted in one month imprisonment and a compensation order of Rs. 3,58,500, affirmed by the appellate court. The revision petition had been pending for over nine years, and the applicant’s counsel claimed lack of a spare copy of the brief and sought further time. The court noted that the delay could not justify further adjournment and that the revision must be decided on merits, not dismissed for default. Consequently, the court disposed of the revision petition without granting an adjournment, while leaving open the possibility of restoration if an application is filed. All pending interim or criminal applications were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision petition pending for more than nine years should be adjourned or disposed of.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of the revision proceedings after disposal.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- criminal revision
- conviction
- imprisonment
- compensation
- delay in proceedings
- restoration of petition
Judgment
21. REVN 316 of 2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2017
ALONGWITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2017
S. Srikanth ...Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
*****
Ashok Kumar Dubey Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia APP for the Respondent-State
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Dubey for the Applicant-convicted
accused.
2. The conviction is for an offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act. There is simple imprisonment of one
month and compensation of Rs. 3,58,500/- as per judgement dated
17th August 2013. This was confirmed by the Appellate Court as per
the judgement dated 4th May 2017. That is why the present revision.
Digitally
signed by
SEEMA SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.01.20 Seema 1/2
11:26:25
+0530
21. REVN 316 of 2017.doc
3. It is true that spare copy could not be given to the Office, that is
why, notice was not issued to the Respondent No. 2-Complainant.
Even today, learned Advocate seeks time because his brief is not
traceable in the office. It is true that this revision is listed after so long
time. It is also true that revision has to be decided on merits and it
cannot be disposed of for default. If this Court will go into the merits
without there being an assistance, then it will cause harm to the
Applicant.
4. I do not find any reason to adjourn the revision, because it is
pending for more than nine years. I am disposing this revision. If there
is an application for restoration, it will be considered positively.
5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
6. Pending interim/criminal application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.)
Seema 2/2
Checking your session…