IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2010 MR. KASHINATH NAIK ... Applicant Versus STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 9th March, 2010 P.C. The Applicant has filed the above application for suspension of sentence and bail in the above Criminal Revision Application. The Applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji Goa, which has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Criminal Appeal No.130/09 by the judgment and order dated 30.1.2010. The learned J.M.F.C., has ordered the Applicant to pay the compensation of Rs.84,000/- in terms of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The above Criminal Revision Application had come up for admission on 5.3.2010 when the learned Counsel for the Applicant was directed to give private notice to the Respondent No.2 and Criminal Revision Application was adjourned to this day i.e. 9.3.2010. Accordingly a private notice of todays hearing was given to the Respondent No.2 by the learned Counsel for the Applicant along with notice a draft of Rs.84,000/- which was the compensation awarded by the learned J.M.F.C. was forwarded to the Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed an affidavit of service dated 9.3.2010 to which is appended the private notice dated 5.3.2010 and the xerox copy of the draft of Rs.84,000/- drawn on Dena Bank, Panaji Goa. The said draft it appears from the endorsement made by the Respondent No.2 on the notice has been accepted by him, albeit wrongly on the ground that the same has been ordered by this Court. Be that as it may, since the amount of compensation has already been tendered by the Applicant to the Respondent No.2, in my view, the above application would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of the prayer clause (a). 3. The Respondent No.2 has not appeared inspite of notice. In so far as bail is concerned, the Applicant would be entitled for bail on the same terms and conditions as were applicable in the Trial Court. The Applicant to furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Applicant not to leave the jurisdiction of this Court without permission. The Applicant to remain present on the day when the above Criminal Revision Application would be heard. The above Application is accordingly disposed of. 4. The affidavit of service is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 5. The parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*