SHANTILAL JETHALAL VASA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apparently a very short matter gets itself involved into several complications and that too within a short span of hardly a couple of months. The complainant had filed a complaint with the Pydhonie Police Station against the present petitioner for an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that some time in the 1st week of March, 1980 the accused approached him and agreed to purchase certain chemicals worth Rs. 31, 400.20 from the complainants firm with a stipulation that the consideration price would be paid after receiving the delivery of the goods. Accordingly, the complainant parted with the properly, which was received and accepted by the petitioner, who gave a cheque for the said amount, which could not be encashed by the complainant though lodged in the bank and the same was thus dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant contacted the accused when another post-dated cheque was given which was also met with the same fate. The complainant, therefore, realised that he was cheated and that is why he approached the police.

(2.) An offence was registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at C.R. No. 435 of 1980 at the said Police Station and the investigation commenced, with which we are not concerned in this proceeding. Suffice it is to observed that so far no charge-sheet has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner-accused moved the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on June 13, 1980. Before the application was finally disposed of and was yet pending, the petitioner moved this Court with a similar prayer on June 16, 1980 when this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail in the sum of Rs. 31, 500/-. The petitioner was arrested by the police on June 24, 1980 and was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay when he was directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 31,500/-. The petitioner could not avail of the bail assist was beyond his reach. He, therefore, remained in custody at least for three days. On June 27, 1980, he moved this Court for modification and reduction of the bail amount. This Court did not pass any order as regards the bail amount, but directed the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate who was further directed to consider that application on its own merits. Upto this stage everything appears to have run rather smooth.