*1* appr.60.10.revn.551.09.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.551 OF 2009 Madhu Ramesh Vithlani. ..Applicant (orig.accused) -Versus- Nirmal Kumar Jain Gundecha and another. ..Respondents .......... Mr.M.S.Prasad, for the Applicant. Mr.Prashant Chande, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 18th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. This Criminal Application seeks the following reliefs:- “(a) The amount of Rs.3,80,000/- paid by Applicant and accepted by the Respondent No.1 during the pendency of the Appeal No.355/2006 may kindly be clarified as adjusted from the amount of order of Rs.10,00,000/-. (b) The sentence of S.I. one year awarded by Trial Court vide order dated 20th March 2006 and confirmed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.355/2006 may kindly be clarified as quashed and set aside on payment of balance amount after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3,80,000/-.” *2* appr.60.10.revn.551.09.sxw 2 It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant (original accused) that the order dated 18.01.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application requires clarification to the extent that the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- which has been paid and accepted by the original Complainant during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.355/2006 be adjusted as against the direction to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs in this Court. 3 It is argued on behalf of the Applicant by Mr.Prasad that the conviction and sentence is under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Applicant is a lady. Against the original sum of Rs.11,25,000/-, this Court directed the deposit of Rs.10 lacs. However, the original Complainant has not clarified that prior to the revision application and during the pendency of criminal appeal, a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- has been paid. That sum is required to be adjusted. Further, if that sum is taken into account, the Applicant has paid more than the required amount of Rs.10 lacs. Mr.Prasad invites my attention to paragraph 8 of the application and the judgment of the Honourable Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.528/2009 decided on 24.02.2010, reported in 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 1147 (Smt.Kiran w/o Yugalkishore Bhattad v/s Smt.Sushila w/o Ramchanran Kattamwar and another). 4 On the other hand, Mr.Chande, learned counsel appearing for the original Complainant, submits that there is no ambiguity requiring any clarification nor is there any error in the order. The criminal application is nothing but an attempt to reopen the proceedings and the order of conviction and sentence which has gained finality. The appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions Court and the Criminal Revision Application challenging that conviction and sentence and the order of the Appellate Court, has also been dismissed by this Court on 06.07.2011. The only *3* appr.60.10.revn.551.09.sxw question remained is the compliance with the direction and deposit of Rs. 11,25,000/- and that is the only aspect of the matter for which it came to be remanded by the lower Appellate Court. In other words, the remand was restricted to the quantum of compensation and beyond that nothing else can be argued now. 5 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the order dated 18.01.2010 disposing of the criminal revision application. On perusal thereof, I do not find anything therein which would enable the Applicant to seek such adjustment as is sought vide the prayers of this criminal application. This is not a case where there is any ambiguity in the order nor is there any clerical error. Apart from the serious issue of maintainability of the present criminal application, what I find is that the Applicant was aware of the payment of Rs.3,80,000/- made during the pendency of the appeal. The Applicant, therefore, only sought reduction in the amount of Rs.11,25,000/- and that amount was reduced to Rs.10 lacs and the same is clear and there is no scope for adjustment therein. The Applicant was not prohibited from raising the issue of deposit of sums made earlier or seeking adjustments while arguing the criminal revision application. Having not chosen to do so, but only praying to take lenient view, the relief for reducing the amount of Rs.10 lacs was sought and that having been granted, now the present Criminal Application is moved which lacks bonafide on the part of the Applicant. In such circumstances, the present Criminal Application is dismissed. 6 The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not assist the Applicant in any manner. That was the appeal directed against the order of the Magistrate acquitting the Appellant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Single Judge, while setting *4* appr.60.10.revn.551.09.sxw aside the acquittal and convicting the accused, made observations which are relied upon by the Applicant. The said observations cannot be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the Applicant in this case. 7 The Criminal Application is dismissed. No costs. The amount already deposited be paid over to the original Complainant with accrued interest on production of an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)