{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.218 OF 2009 Jethananad s/o Gyanchand Hariyani Age-48 years, Occ-Business R/o Shop No.8, Ganjgolai Shopping Complex Latur, Dist-Latur APPLICANT VERSUS Ramdas s/o Dasrao Kotmale Age-33 years, Occ-Agri & Business R/o Peth, Tq & Dist-Latur RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.B.Talekar, h/f Mr.H.I.Pathan, Advocate for applicant Mr.A.R.Kale h/f Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2 nd December 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present revision application, the applicant has challenged the order passed below Exhibit-5 in Criminal Appeal No.58/2009, which is filed challenging the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by the 6th JMFC, Latur in Summary Criminal Case No. 775/2008 by which the applicant is convicted and sentenced to suffer one year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for two months. The applicant is also directed to pay the {2} compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. The said order is impugned in the criminal appeal, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 2. It appears that the applicant has filed an application (Exhibit-5) before the Additional Sessions Judge , Latur praying to suspend the sentence and order of compensation. It further appears that the applicant has deposited the fine amount in the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order passed below Exhibit-5 has suspended the conviction and sentence on the condition that the applicant deposits an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- in equal monthly installments of Rs.25,000/- each. The said order is under challenged in this revision. 3. Rule. Considering that a very small issue is involved in the revision, rule made returnable early and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this revision is heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. It is urged that the learned trial court has directed the applicant to pay an amount of fine and in addition to that also directed to pay the compensation. It is urged that the defence of the applicant in the appeal is that the account of the applicant with the said bank was for the period of 2002-2006 only and it is alleged that the cheque in question was issued in the year 2008. It is urged that when the account itself was closed in the year 2006 {3} then it is the positive case of the applicant that the cheuqe cannot be issued in the year 2008. There is some force in the submission that in case this defence is accepted then whether the applicant can be ordered to deposit the entire amount of cheque by way of compensation. 5. While opposing the submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order impugned in the present revision is an interlocutory order and hence the revision is not maintainable by virtue of provisions of section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This submission cannot be accepted as the revision lies before this Court u/s 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not u/s 397. It is also urged that on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the applicant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court and there is no order that the respondent is allowed to withdraw the same. It is requested that in the premise, the revision be dismissed as not maintainable. 6. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is clear that though this order is passed below Exhibit-5 in criminal appeal, pending on the file of Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge Latur, yet the revision u/s 401 of the Criminal Procedure can lie before this Court. Apart from it, the defence raised that whether the cheuqe is issued knowingly that there is deficit balance as the account is closed or the blank cheque is misused requires to be {4} considered in the appeal. Apart from it, as per the impugned order, three installments are already paid and the applicant has shown willingness to deposit the 4th installment, if one month’s time is given. In the premise, case is made out for interference in the impugned order in respect of deposit of compensation, which requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the revision succeeds. The order passed below Exhibit-5 in Criminal Appeal No. 58/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside subject to applicant’s depositing of 4th installment, as per the impugned order, within one month from today. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicate above. Revision application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/crirev218-09