1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 551 OF 2009 Mrs. Madhu Ramesh Vithlani. ... Applicant. V/s. Nirmal Kumar Jain Gundecha & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. M.S. Prasad for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant H. Chande for Respondent 1. Ms. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- This Revision Application was placed before the Court at the request of the Applicant who has been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act (Section 138). From the perusal of record it appears that the Applicant has been convicted and sentenced in March 2006 and thereafter, on account of the pending Appeal and further Applications, she has not surrendered to custody. 2. Despite this Court giving opportunities to her from September 2009, till date, the compensation amount has not been deposited. Further, from the record it appears that the Courts below have taken into account all the relevant aspects and circumstances before recording the conviction and sentence. A complete opportunity was given to the Applicant/Accused to defend herself. Being a lady, a lenient 2 view was also taken. However, she has utilized the pendency of the Revision Application to delay her inevitable arrest. From September 2009 until this Court directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant in response to which also she has failed to appear. Hence, I was constrainted to observe on the last occasion that the Advocate must ensure her presence. There are reports from the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court because the Accused was not even produced before him. The matter appeared on 15th January 2010 and it was assured that she would remain present today at 3.00 p.m. 3. Accordingly, she is present before the Court. The only submission that the learned Advocate appearing for her makes before the Court is that this Court must take lenient view of the matter and grant her time to deposit the compensation amount. It is stated that a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- was paid during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the record indicates that while convicting and sentencing the Accused/Applicant before me, the Trial Court, upon remand has directed that the Applicant should pay a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/- within six months from the date of the Trial Court’s order dated 9th April 2009. He states that she will pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by 25th February 2009 or else, she faces the consequences. 4. It is apparent that the remand by the Appellate Court is restricted to the quantum of compensation and that too on a Revision Application preferred by the Original Complainant. 3 The conviction for the offences alleged and the sentence imposed is confirmed in the Appeal. 5. In such circumstances and considering that the Applicant/Accused is a lady, she is not taken into custody forthwith. Since she has shown her willingness to deposit the sums in Court and prays for time to enable her to do so, as a last chance, it is directed that time to surrender is extended till 26th February 2010, on the condition that the Applicant deposits a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the Trial Court. In case of deposit, the Trial Court to allow the Original Complainant to withdraw the sums. In that event, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 9th April 2009 shall stand set aside. In case of default, the Applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith and thereupon, she will have to undergo the imprisonment as directed in the Trial Court’s Order. The Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)