2025:BHC-AS:44635 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 950 OF 2025 Rashmikant Zaverchand Shah ...Petitioner Versus

1. Dharmesh Chapsi Ghada …Respondents

2. The State of Maharashtra Mr. Rohaan Cama, a/w Prerak Choudhary, i/b Prerak Choudhary, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Karia (Shah), a/w Snehankita Munj, Dipti Jatin Karia, Shraddha Kamble, for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashok Gawai, APP for the State-Respondent No.2.

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

Digitally signed by RESERVED ON: 18^th SEPTEMBER, 2025 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.10.14 PRONOUNCED ON: 14^th OCTOBER, 2025

19:13:30 +0530 JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner – appellant takes exception to an order dated 3^rd December, 2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1995 of 2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mazgaon, whereby while suspending the sentence imposed on the appellant – accused by the learned Magistrate in CC No.1137/SS/2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the NI Act, 1881”).

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under:

3.1 The respondent – complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, with the allegation that the complainant had advanced by way of loan a sum of Rs.2,67,75,000/-, on various occasions, during the period 10^th April, 2018 to 20^th February, 2021. The accused had acknowledged the liability to repay the said amount by executing Demand Promissory Notes. Towards the payment of the said loan amount, the accused has drawn three cheques for the sum of Rs.89,25,000/-, each, payable on 15^th March, 2021. All the cheques were dishonored on presentment. A demand notice was issued on 15^th April, 2021. The accused neither complied with the demand nor gave any reply thereto.

Hence, the complaint.

3.2 The accused contested the existence of the debt or liability and sought to dispel the presumptions by contending that the complainant had not advanced the loan, as alleged, and the subject cheques were obtained by way of security for some business transactions. The complainant had fabricated the Demand Promissory Note. Even the demand notice was not served on the accused. It was, inter alia, contended that the alleged claim of the complainant of having advanced a huge amount of Rs.2,67,75,000/- in cash was otherwise in violation of the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and related to unaccounted transactions, which were illegal.

3.3 By a judgment and order dated 2^nd September, 2024, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,67,75,000/-

with a default stipulation.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the Court of Session.

3.5 By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge directed the accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspension of sentence. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the accused failed to make out any exceptional circumstance to suspend the sentence without making such deposit.

4. Being aggrieved, the accused has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

5. I have heard Mr. Rohaan Cama, the learned Counsel for the petitioner – accused, and Mr. Jatin Karia, the learned Counsel for the respondent – complainant, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material on record.

6. Mr. Cama, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, mounted a multi-pronged challenge to the impugned order. F