* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2007 Hemant Parsuram Sawant ......Applicant/Orig.Accused V/S. 1. Ms.Anita Chandru Badlani 2. The State of Maharashtra .....Orig.Complainant/Resps. ========= Mr.G.V.Pandya, Adv.for applicant. Mr.N.P. Wagle, adv.for respondent no.1. Ms.S.V. Gajare, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- SMT.RP.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Revision Application challenges concurrent findings and decision of conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. In default of payment of compensation, he has to suffer further simple * 2 * imprisonment for 3 months. 3. The case of respondent no.1-original complainant is that she was introduced to the applicant through a common friend. The applicant gave his introduction as a sub-broker being associated with the Bombay Stock Exchange. Respondent no.1 desired to purchase shares of a company by name Global Telesystems Ltd and had paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant for the purpose. However, the applicant was unable to purchase and deliver the shares to her within the agreed period. Therefore, he issued three cheques in the sum of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- drawn on HongKong and Shangai Banking Corporation Ltd, M.G.Road, Mumbai to her. On 31st May, 2001 when respondent no.1 presented the cheques for payment, the same were dishonoured. On 15th June 2001, she served statutory notice upon the applicant. When he failed to make the payment as demanded in the notice, she filed the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The defence of the applicant to the prosecution was that the statutory notice was not served upon him. On merits, he contended that respondent no.1 had forced him to issue the cheques in question and therefore the cheques issued were not in discharge of any legal liability. 5. Respondent no.1 examined herself in support of her case. The applicant did not lead any evidence whatsoever. During the course of examination of respondent no.1, the applicant got produced an undertaking in writing by way * 3 * of an Affidavit given by him stating that he had issued 6 cheques to respondent no.1 as he was unable to purchase shares for her. The 6 cheques were for the total amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. The present proceedings are in respect of three of the cheques. Thus, cross-examination by the applicant has strengthened the evidence of respondent no.1. Having regard to the evidence on record, it is patent that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment. 6. Both the courts below have also commented upon the conduct of the applicant during the trial, as well as, appeal proceedings. This order cannot be complete without referring to the conduct. The affidavit of examination-in-chief of respondent no.1 was filed in August 2003 in the presence of the applicant. On the complaint filed by respondent no.1 in July 2001, process was issued against the applicant. As he failed to appear, there was warrant issued. In August 2003, affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief of respondent no.1 was filed in the court in the presence of the applicant. Thereafter, he disappeared. Therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against him from time to time. He finally appeared before the court two years later and started the cross- examination on 24th June 2005 which was completed on 11th July 2005. The statement of the applicant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 30th July 2005. Thereafter, again the applicant failed to appear for almost 10 months and the matter was adjourned from time to time. As a result, proclamation was issued and the applicant was arrested and brought before the court on 16th May * 4 * 2006. Thereafter, the judgment came to be pronounced by the trial court. He has not complied with the orders directing him to pay costs to respondent no.1. He failed to comply with the directions of the Sessions Court to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation before the first date. This conduct is sought to be explained away by saying that he had family problems. It is obvious from the above that the applicant made every attempt in delaying the proceedings. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. [JUDGE]