IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2011 M/S. R.P.S. MINERALS TRADING COMPANY, REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. PRAVIN D. BLAGGAN, ... Appellant Versus M/S. R. M. ASSOCIATES, BY ITS PARTNERS 1. MR. M. R. SAWANT AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. Singbal, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2(a) and 2(b). Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for respodnent no.3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 13th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. S. G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. S. Singbal, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 2(a) and 2(b) and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respodnent no.3. 2. Since limited issue is involved in the appeal, appeal is fixed for final disposal today with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 3. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Panaji in Criminal Appeal no. 5/2009, by which appeal preferred by the respondent nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) against judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in Criminal Case No.93/OA/138/2007/A has been allowed. The appellant is original complainant and the respondent nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) are accused in the above criminal case for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Mr. Singbal, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1, 2(a) and 2(b) who are accused in criminal case fairly concedes that impugned order is unsustainable in law and submitted that he has no objection if impugned judgment and order is set aside and matter remanded to the lower appellate Court for a fresh decision keeping all the contentions of the parties open. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellant states that he will have no objection for the same. 6. In view of the above, in my considered opinion the submission made by Mr. Bhobe and concession made by Mr. Singbal on behalf of the accused deserve to be accepted, considering the nature of the findings given by the lower appellate Court. 7. I do not deem it necessary to give any reasons for setting aside the impugned judgment and order since parties have agreed for remand by keeping all the contentions open. 8. In view of the above, impugned Judgment and order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Panaji is quashed and set aside and matter remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh decision. The lower appellate Court to decide the Criminal Appeal no. 5/2009 afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the rival parties are kept open. Bail bonds executed by the accused nos. 2(a) and 2(b) stand discharged. Liberty to respondent nos. 2(a) and 2(b) to furnish fresh bail bonds before the lower appellate Court. 9. Parties to appear before the lower appellate Court on 25.8.2011 at 10.00a.m. 10. Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn