* 1 * W.P.3153-3154.2010 9.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3153 OF 2010 W I T H CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3154 OF 2010 Ajay Sharma .......Petitioner V/S. Nathalal Oza & anr. ...... Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Sandesh Patil i/by. Prashant Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions. None for respondent no.1. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State-respondent no.2 in W.P. 3153/2010. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State-respondent no.2 in W.P. 3154/2010. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a common order on the above petitions which raise the same questions of fact and law. The parties to the proceedings * 2 * W.P.3153-3154.2010 9.2.2011 are also the same. Respondent no.1 had filed two complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is convicted in both the cases. The petitioner preferred appeals against the judgment and order of conviction and filed application for suspension of sentence. The application came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court by the orders impugned in the present petition. The Sessions Court rejected the applications for the reasons quoted hereinafter. In the instant case before me, the appellant has filed “ false affidavit before the trial Court. In fact there was no order passed by this court. Filing false affidavit before trial Court shows that the appellant has no respect for law. The learned Advocate for respondent has also drawn my attention to the order of the trial court dt.19/5/2010 below Ex.73. The trial Court has directed the appellant to pay Rs.65,000/- on or before 10/6/2010. He has not obeyed this order. Thus the appellant has no respect for law, therefore in view of the above law laid down by our High Court, I think the appellant is not entitled for supension of sentence. The trial court imposed the sentence of fine only and there is no sentence for imprisonment.” * 3 * W.P.3153-3154.2010 9.2.2011 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the directions of deposit of the amounts in both the cases. In the circumstances, there can be no infirmity with the orders passed by the Sessions Court. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is also not in contact with the advocate on record for a long time. In the circumstances, the petitions are dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]