1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No. 1561 of 2009 . Pankaj C. Gandhi .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Respondents Mr.Pankaj Gandhi, Petitioner in person. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for the State Mr.Rohit Sanghavi in person, partner of respondent No.2 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 13th November, 2009 P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr.Pankaj Gandhi, party in person as well as Mr. Rohit Sanghvi for the respondent No.2. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner at the first instance has challenged the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Pune below Exhibit 20 in Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2006 and has further prayed that the said 2 pending appeal be directed to be heard on its own merits without the petitioner depositing any amount of compensation. The petitioner also prays for suspension of the substantive sentence passed in the Order under appeal in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2006 unconditionally and he be allowed to continue on bail as per the existing bail terms. 3. It appears that the complainant was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 in RCC No.93 of 2003 on 31.7.2006. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months and was further saddled with compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, i.d. thereof was to further suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. This order is the subject matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2006. The order below Exhibit 20 passed on 5.4.2008 in the said appeal came to be challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.905 of 2008 and the said petition came to be dismissed on 6.10.2008. The petitioner approached the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.7836 of 2008. The said SLP was disposed on 5.11.2008 in terms of the following order: “Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as the respondent No.2, we disposed of the Special Leave Petition by modifying the order dated 5h April, 3 2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.351/2006 by directing the petitioner herein to deposit 25% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, instead of 50% as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. The said amount is to be deposited within two weeks from date. The order of the High Court, which has been impugned herein, is also modified to the said extent. In default of complying with these directions within the stipulated time, this order shall stand vacated. The Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 30th August, 2006 shall be read along with this Order”. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited 25% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court even as of now, and he states that he has been declared as insolvent in Insolvency Petition No.10 of 2008 decided by this Court on its original side on 11.5.2009. As per the petitioner, his challenge to the order dated 5.4.2008 passed below Exhibit 20 by the lower Appellate Court is required to be re-examined by us. 5. The petitioner’s remedy lies somewhere else and not before us for the same relief and therefore this petition will have to be dismissed as not maintainable. On the petitioner’s failure to deposit 25% of the compensation amount, the order of the sessions court has become operative 4 and the same order has been confirmed by this Court on the earlier occasion. 6. Hence the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]