[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.195 OF 2001 M/s.Ajit Ravetkar & Co. ..Applicant Vs. Smt.Vasumati Pandurang Bokil and Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.Rashmi Gagwani advocate Mr.Ganesh Gole Advocate for applicant Ms.M.S.Mohite Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the leaned advocate for Respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant-orignal accused has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Pune under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.183 of 1997 before the Sessions Court at Pune. [-2-] The Appeal came to be partly allowed, while the sentence of imprisonment of S.I. for three months came to be confirmed and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court was set aside and instead, the applicant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to Respondent no.1-original complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision application has been preferred. 3. During the pendency of the matter, parties have arrived at consent terms. Parties have tendered consent terms which are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Revision is disposed of in terms of consent terms. Liberty to apply in case of any difficulty. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]