IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2803 OF 2009 Pradeep Menon ..Petitioner Vs. Rajv Bhikiprasad Gupta & Anr. ..Respondents Shri Subhash Jha i/b Law Global for the Petitioner Shri Pravin Singh for Respondent Mrs. P. P. Bhosle APP CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th January, 2010. P.C. : 1. This is a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Appeal No.656 of 2009. 2. The Petitioner is the original Accused. The First Respondent is the Complainant. The First Respondent filed a complaint alleging the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led, concluded that the offence stands proved and sentenced the Petitioner to suffer a simple imprisonment for two months. He was directed to pay compensation determined at Rs. 26,665/- within one month or in default to suffer imprisonment for one month. 3. The order of the Magistrate is dated 16.03.2009, whereas that of the Appellate Court is 09.09.2009. 4. On the last occasion after hearing the parties, I had indicated that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence. The Trial Court as also the lower Appellate Court on a scrutiny of the material produced and appreciation of the original and documentary evidence, has concluded that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. Although, the grievance is that the Appeal was maintainable the Sessions Court dealt with the matter as if it is a Revision and not an Appeal. Although, a Remand is sought, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary to enter into that controversy. No serious prejudice nor miscarriage of justice has resulted on account of this error. The Amount involved and the Defence raised does not merit interference. There is no error apparent or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. However, Mr. Jha submits that the compensation of Rs.26,665/- has been deposited in the Trial Court. The Complainants Advocate states that the same has been deposited after a delay of more than six months. Therefore, if the offence is to be compounded, something more must be deposited. After some arguments, both sides left the amount to be determined by the Court. In these circumstances, if the Petitioners deposit in the Trial Court the total sum of Rs.40,000/-, the offence shall stand compounded and the concurrent order of conviction and sentence to then stand set aside. The balance sum of Rs.14,000/- will be deposited by the Petitioners on or before 22.01.2010. The original Complainant is permitted to withdraw the sums deposited with accrued interest. In default, the Petitioners will have to surrender to the custody. The Petition is disposed of in these terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)