1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 11/2008 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 12/2008 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 13/2008 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 14/2008 Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No.1. Date : 21st October, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 By this common order, the revision applications can be disposed of finally. 2 These applications were made to challenge the order passed by the lower appellate court directing the substantive sentence awarded to the respondent / accused to run concurrently instead to run consecutively. When the cases were before the trial Court, all the cases were tried separately and the respondent / accused was convicted in all cases separately. He was sentenced to suffer substantive sentence in each case separately. As said above, when the respondent / accused filed appeals against all the judgments of conviction, the above mentioned order was passed. The parties however have settled the dispute out of the Court and today instead of respondent / accused, his son Amit has taken responsibility of paying the amount due to the revision applicant / complainant and issued fresh cheque of his account accepting the legal consequences of this cheque if got bounced. Both the parties filed purshis to that effect. In view of the purshis which is taken on 2 record and marked Exhibit X, the applicant / complainant does not want to press. 3 The parties are present before Court and are identified by their respective advocates. They admitted the contents of the purshis which is written in Marathi language known to the parties. 4 In view of this, the revision applications are disposed of as withdrawn. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/