SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.685 OF 2009 Mahesh Acharya .. Applicant v/s. M/s. Star Brillian & Another .. Respondents. Shri Umesh A.Breed i/b.Parvez Ubharey, for the Applicant. Smt. A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : J. H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. On 3rd December, 2009, this Court had directed the Applicant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,25,000/- within one week, failing which the bail order would stand vacated and the Applicant shall be taken into custody. The amount has not been deposited so far. SRJ 2 2. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the two Courts below, it appears that the Applicant had taken 33.33 carats of diamonds worth Rs.4,46,455/- from the complainant against the Jangad note dated 9th November, 2010. He failed to make the payment. On demand, he issued post dated cheque bearing no.018201 dated 3rd June, 2003 for the amount of Rs.4,46,455/- drawn against the State Bank of India, Chembur Branch, Bombay. The said cheque was presented on 3rd June, 2003 but it was dishonoured. The complainant assured that he would make arrangement and, therefore, the cheque was re-deposited on 13th June, 2003 with Bank of India, Opera House Branch, Bombay for encashment. The cheque was again returned with endorsement by the drawee bank Not arranged for in the account of the accused. The complainant issued the notice by Registered Post A.D. which was received by the Applicant on 24th June, 2003. It was contended in the notice that the said diamonds were sold by him outside Bombay and delay in payment was on account of delay in realising payment thereof. The Trial Court held that Accused is guilty of the charge SRJ 3 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1888 and sentenced him to S.I. for a term of three months and also to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. Applicant preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 14th November, 2009. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant could not point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the application. 4. Revision Application stands dismissed. [J.H.BHATIA,J. ]