1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 544 OF 2008 Vasubhai D. Patel ... Applicant Vs. Kamlesh R. Patel & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.K. Shinde a/w Mr. S.P. Dighe i/b Mr. Sagar Kasar for the applicant. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant i/b Mr. S.D. Kadam for respondent No.1. Ms.S.V. Gajare APP for the respondent State. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. Dated :- 15th September, 2009. PC : 01. This revision application is filed against the order dated 05.09.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik thereby allowing the revision application filed by the original complainant for the enhancement of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for six months. It is to be noted that the applicant-accused who was convicted by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 4th January, 2006 has not challenged the order of conviction 2 by filing appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that though the applicant has not filed an appeal against the order of conviction, now at the stage of entertaining this revision application, the evidence tendered on facts is also to be appreciated because the issue of the enhancement of the sentence cannot be decided without touching the appreciation of the evidence. The learned counsel has further argued that in the revision basic issue of legality of the conviction is also to be decided. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant-accused cannot be accepted in view of Section 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further there is no material and no point of law to show that the order of enhancement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- was issued on 16th April, 2003 and this aspect has been considered while enhancing the amount of fine. Accepting submissions of learned counsel for the applicant will amount to treat this revision as appeal against conviction, which cannot be done when he 3 has not preferred it an appeal before the Sessions Court. Hence, revision application stands rejected. The counsel for the applicant-accused submits that, he to prefer SLP, hence seeks stay. 02. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he be allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as per the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Taking into account the submissions and the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant-accused, original complainant-respondent is allowed withdraw the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- after four weeks if no other order is passed by the Court. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)