Decided on April 19,2016

Ashokbhai Jayantibhai Patel Appellant


G.B.SHAH, J. - (1.) Vide order dated 13/04/2016, this Court issued Rule, making it returnable on 25/04/2016, however, upon a request of Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate for the applicant, the returnable date was pre­poned to 18/04/2016. Further, so far as prayer para 10(D) of the present applications is concerned, the Court passed the following order in para 4.1 and 4.2 of the above order, which read as under: "4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant has sought the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail pending present revision applications. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case together with two concurrent findings and the amount at stake, in the opinion of the Court, grant of bail to the applicant unconditionally, may be prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to grant any ex parte discretionary relief in favour of the applicant herein. 4.2 List on 25th April 2016."
(2.) Moreover, following further order was passed on 13/04/2016: "1. After the above order was passed, the learned advocate for the applicant requested to pre­pone the returnable date of notice of rule. The request found to be reasonable and hence, granted. The returnable date is pre­poned to 18th April 2016. 2. Further, the learned advocate for the applicant submits the proposed amendment. In the interest of justice, the same is allowed. The learned advocate for the applicant to carry out the amendment forthwith and supply the fresh copy to the other side. 3. Direct service today, is permitted."
(3.) On 18/04/2016, Mr. C. B. Gupta, learned advocate, put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant . 3.1 Ms. Jani, the learned advocate for the applicant, drew my attention towards the amended prayer para 10(DD) and requested to hear the matter on the said amended prayer, which reads as under: "That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Honorable court be pleased to suspend the sentence and order of conviction passed in order dated February 16, 2015 passed by the 31st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 647 of 2013 and common order dated March 31, 2016 passed by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 100; &" 3.2 Accordingly, I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Ms. Megha Jani placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Another, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 528, more particularly, para 55, which reads as under: "Unfortunately, the legislature has not made any express provision in this behalf. In absence of any express provision, the question must be considered having regard to the overall object of a statute. We have noticed hereinabove that Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with Section 374 CrPC confers a right of appeal. Such a right is an absolute one. In a case where a judgment of conviction has been awarded, the court can release a person on bail having regard to the nature of offence but as also the other relevant factors including its effect on society. A person upon arrest may have to remain in jail as an undertrial prisoner. So would a person upon conviction. A person may also have to remain in jail, in the event he defaults in payment of fine, if he is so directed. But when a direction is issued for payment of compensation, having regard to sub­section (2) of Section 357 of the Code, the application thereof should ordinarily be directed to be stayed. It will, therefore, be for the court to stay the operation of that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder compensation has been directed to be paid, which would necessarily mean that some conditions therefor may also be imposed. A fortiori a part of the amount of compensation may be directed to be deposited, but the same must be a reasonable amount." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.