IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.484 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.256 OF 2008 Cresent Builders etc. .. Applicants V/s. Manilal Chunilal Sanghavi & Ors. .. Respondents None for the Applicants. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 3RD, 2009. P.C. It appears that earlier said Applicant was facing prosecution under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and conviction was awarded to him on 7th June, 2006 and he was awarded sentence of six months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, he preferred Appeal before the Sessions Court. The said 1 Appeal came to be dismissed on 2nd May, 2008. Against the said order, he preferred criminal Revision before this Court. Said Revision Application was taken before the court and was finally heard on merits by hearing rival parties and was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 26th June, 2008. As such, the result of the dismissal of Criminal Revision before this Court was revival of the original order passed by the Trial Magistrate i.e. six months imprisonment and payment of Rs.5,50,000/-. 2. Now by the present Criminal Application, the Applicant/Original accused asked for permission to deposit the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- being full and final amount of settlement as per the compensation awarded by the Trial Court and for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of six months. In fact such type of petition with such prayer cannot lye on the face of it as criminal Revision preferred against the impugned order has already been disposed of after hearing the parties on merits and as such present criminal Application is misconceived. 3. From the contents of paragraph 10 of the said application it appears that some steps must have been initiated against the Applicant towards execution of the order sentencing him to six months imprisonment and for payment of compensation and as such, said circumstance might have prompted him to rush to this Court with 2 such prayer, which in fact cannot be granted. 4. Under these circumstances, the present criminal Application is misconceived and cannot survive. Hence, dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3