The other day,Bollywood Hungamawas among the very first sites to break the news that a Jamnagar court has actually sentenced Rajkumar Santoshi to prison for 2 years in a cheque bounce case. At the very same time, the court likewise purchased the filmmaker to deposit double the quantity that the filmmaker owed the plaintiff. The news spread like wild fire and numerous presumed that Rajkumar had actually gone behind bars currently.Bollywood Hungamahas actually found out that the well-known filmmaker can submit an appeal and therefore conserve himself from going to prison.
EXCLUSIVE: Despite the prison sentence, Rajkumar Santoshi has actually not gone behind bars and can submit an appeal; legal representative of the complainant shares information; Santoshi’s attorney launches declaration
The plaintiff, Ashok Lal, a local of Jamnagar and the owner of Shreeji Shipping, had actually lent Rajkumar Santoshi Rs. 1.10 crore in 2015 for a movie. To pay back the loan, Rajkumar offered Ashok Lal 11 cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each. These cheques bounced in December 2016. The plaintiff initially attempted to communicate with the filmmaker over this matter. When he stopped working to do so, Ashok Lal submitted the fit under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bollywood Hungamasolely spoke with Piyush Bhojani, the supporter for Ashok Lal. Piyush validated that Rajkumar Santoshi was not present throughout the hearing on February 17. He likewise discussed, “The optimum jail time in such flexible cases is 2 years and the optimum fine is double the quantity owed. When the judgment is revealed, the implicated gets a duration of 30 days to submit an appeal. After submitting the appeal, he needs to deposit 20% of the quantity. To put it simply, he’s bound to deposit Rs. 22 lakhs. If he stops working to do so, he’ll be put behind bars.” He continued, “If we win after he submits the appeal, he’ll go to the High Court where once again, he’ll need to deposit 20% of the quantity.”
Piyush Bhojani likewise exposed that this was not the very first case versus Rajkumar Santoshi by the plaintiff, “Three cases were likewise submitted versus him in 2014.” When asked how both celebrations fulfilled, he responded, “Mr Ashok Lal is an entrepreneur. He likewise has a workplace and home in Mumbai. They satisfied and ended up being good friends. In the past, Mr Santoshi had actually taken the loan numerous times however he had actually constantly returned the quantity within the stated time. This time, nevertheless, he defaulted.”
Rajkumar Santoshi even avoided hearings numerous times. In April 2023, he needed to participate in the hearing after a bailable warrant was provided versus him. Piyush Bhojani specified, “He came for the hearings two times. He needed to come when the case was submitted in 2017. It’s necessary. He went to a hearing last year. This time most likely, he understood that he ‘d be penalized. He avoided participating in the hearing. Now, he’ll have to participate in to submit the appeal. It can’t be done without his existence.”
The opportunities of Rajkumar Santoshi going behind bars are not likely, stated the legal representative, “Very couple of individuals go to prison in such cases.” He included, “Mr Ashok Lal is ultra-rich and has his own personal jet. The quantity was not a considerable one for him. This case was essential for us so that a message is sent out loud and clear to everybody that if they attempt to run away with his cash, he/she will be penalized.”
Rajkumar Santoshi’s supporter, Binesh Patel, launched a declaration, “First of all, the court has actually remained its judgement for 30 days and has actually approved Mr Santoshi bail after we looked for time to appeal versus the judgement at a greater online forum. The prosecution didn’t produce any documentary proof to show that Mr Santoshi had actually taken cash at all. The prosecution itself has actually confessed that a 3rd party had actually gathered the stated cash from the plaintiff. In return, the 3rd party had actually supplied transformed eleven cheques of Rs.10 lakhs each, which Mr Santoshi was not familiar with. The magisterial court neglected these truths and ruled aga