1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2756 OF 2009 Mr. Shantilal K. Shah. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. S.K. Gupta & Anr. ... Respondents. Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Velkar for Respondent 1. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- During the course of the Revisional proceedings before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, the First Respondent – Original Complainant made an application purporting to be one under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence. Criminal Revision Application No. 740 of 2007 is filed by the present Petitioner to challenge the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court in proceedings arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The conviction and sentence is dated 8th June 2007 and this Revision Application was pending. During the course of its hearing, the subject application was made invoking the Revisional Court’s power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. After the matter was argued for some time, Mr. Velkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the First Respondent makes a statement that the application dated 19th March 2009 before the Revisional Court may be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty reserved to the First Respondent to raise all 2 permissible contentions with regard to the sufficiency and adequacy of the evidence on record including that the Power of Attorney holder deposed consistently with the allegations and averments in the complaint. Therefore, the conviction and sentence should be maintained. 3. In the light of this statement made by Mr. Velkar, the application before the Revisional Court is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such but with liberty reserved to raise all contentions on the evidence already recorded/its sufficiency and adequacy. 4. The Revisional Court to deal with contentions in this behalf raised by both sides and pass appropriate final orders on the Revisional Application. Withdrawal of the application by the First Respondent will not prevent the First Respondent from raising appropriate pleas and if the final orders in the Revision Application are adverse to challenge them in accordance with law. 5. In the light of this development and withdrawal of the application before the Revisional Court, it is not necessary to secrutinize the legality and correctness of the order dated 16th July 2009. The impugned order does not survive in the light of the withdrawal of the Application on which it was made. The Petition is disposed off in these terms. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)