( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2007 Sudhir Acchutrao Deshmukh .. Appellant. Versus 1. Manmandir Nagari Sah.Patsanstha Maryadit, Vita 2. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. None for the appellant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for respondent No.2 State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia for respondent No.1 State. None for the appellant. 2. The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was directed to undergo imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days in default to pay fine. The petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,96,738/-. This ( 2 ) order came to be challenged in the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2007 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli by his order dated 31.10.2007 directed the appellant to deposit Rs.15,000/- per month so as to make up the total amount of Rs.1,96,000/- and also observed that failure to comply with the said order would result in vacating the order of suspension of the substantive sentence. 3. This order dated 31.10.2007 has been passed keeping in view the basic principle that the amount of compensation has to be recovered from the accused. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli has ordered that the amount be deposited in the Court and it is not ordered to be repaid to the complainant. Hence, there is no immediate inconvenience caused to the appellant. The normal experience is that after the order of conviction is passed, the amount which is to be paid by way of compensation often gets not recovered. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli has taken care to see that the appellant is made to pay the compensation amount and seen that it is not being paid to complainant. 4. The impugned order is passed by the learned ( 3 ) Principal Sessions Judge, Sangli keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip S.Dahanukar v/s.Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. Dilip S.Dahanukar v/s.Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. Dilip S.Dahanukar v/s.Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 2417. reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 2417. reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 2417. Hence, no interferende in the impugned order is required. Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)