1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 473 of 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 322 of 2007 Ashok C. Mehta .. Applicant versus Roop Telesonis & Ultrasonis & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.B.M. Shaikh for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. Ms.Varsha Thorat for respondent no.1.. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 18th February 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant prays that the civil revision application no.60 of 2006 be restored to file. 3. By an order dated 22nd June 2007 passed in criminal revision application no. 60 of 2006, this Court has noted that applicant had given an undertaking to this Court to pay the entire amount of cheque of Rs.3,03,350/- within three weeks from 10th 2 April 2007 and had also given an undertaking that he would offer an amount of Rs.6,650/- in cash or by demand draft to the respondent no.2 - original complainant by 30th April 2007. In the order, this Court also noted that the undertaking was not complied with. However showing indulgence, this Court granted him two weeks time to comply, with a direction that in case of failure, matter would stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the court. Despite the leniency, the applicant did not comply with the order and therefore criminal revision application no.60 of 2007 stood dismissed by reason of self operative order dated 22nd June 2007. 4. The applicant thereafter filed Criminal Application no.322 of 2007 for setting aside the order of dismissal. This Court (Coram V.C.Daga,J), by an order dated 1st November 2007, rejected that application by imposing punitive costs of Rs.25,000/-. Paragraph nos.12 and 13 of the order are relevant and are quoted herein below :- 12. In my considered view, mere dismissal of application will not serve ends of justice; as such same is dismissed with cost quantified in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for non-compliance of 3 the undertaking given to this Court. 13. In the event applicant moved for restoration, payment of cost would be condition precedent. The applicant will have to first deposit the cost and then seek restoration, that too, subject to compliance of undertaking given to this Court from time to time. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the direction given in paragraph no.13 of the order have not been complied with. Though the applicant had undertaken to this Court that he would deposit sum of Rs.3,03,350/- the amount has still not been deposited. Counsel for the applicant admits that the order has not been partly complied with and part deposit has been made on 1st January 2008. Since a specific direction has been issued by this court that if an application for restoration is moved, the applicant would have to first deposit the costs and seek restoration subject to the compliance of the undertaking, the present application cannot be entertained as he has not complied with the undertaking. Hence, the application is rejected. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J)