1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1871 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2009 Dnyanoba s/o Manikreddy Mare .. Applicant Versus The Vaidyanath Co-operative Bank and another .. Respondents Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. J.S. Gavane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th JUNE, 2009 P.C.:- 1] Heard. The applicant deserves bail, but before I pass appropriate order releasing the applicant on bail, I must mention that the learned Incharge Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur (Shri P.B. More) could not have passed the order of bail after the above mentioned appeal was dismissed on merits. 2 2] The applicant was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- in the lower Court. (This amount represented the amount of the failed cheque). The appellate Court confirmed the finding of conviction and even did not disturb the order in respect of the substantive sentence. The learned Judge, however for the reasons recorded in the judgment, modified the order in respect of the compensation amount. The impugned judgment and order was passed on 15.5.2009. While passing the final order in the appeal, the learned Judge ordered that the appellant-accused should surrender his bail bond. I am told across the Bar that most probably at that time the appellant was taken in custody and was sent to jail. On 18.5.2009, it seems the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur was not attending the duty and the charge of his Court was with other Judicial Officer Shri P.B. More. It seems, he entertained the 3 application for bail and passed the above mentioned incorrect order. 3] This learned Judge should not have entertained the application for bail, once the appeal was disposed of on 15.5.2009. No provision in the Cr.P.C. allows him to entertain such application. It is elementary that the Cr.P.C. provides only one appeal and pending the appeal, gives ample discretion to the appellate Court, to release the appellant on bail, but once the appeal is decided and dismissed, the role of the appellate Court comes to an end. 4] I am told that generally, in cases under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the lower appellate Court Judges tend to take lenient view and afford reasonable breathing time to the convicted appellants, instead of sending them to custody immediately. Although the intention of such Judicial Officers can not be doubted, but the course they adopt, is quite questionable. As said above, 4 after the appeal is disposed of, the lower appellate Court, is unable to pass further orders in the matter. 5] Hence, order:- . The applicant is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. 6] Application disposed of. 7] A copy of this order, shall be sent to above referred both the Judicial Officers. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/15june9/cra1871.09