[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLN.NO.110 OF 2007 Satyajeet Babasaheb Patil ..Applicant Vs. Indrayani Construction and Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State Complainant is present in person ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the complainant who is present in person. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Miraj in SCC No.1753 of 2003. Being aggrieved thereby, appeal was preferred by the applicant. The said appeal came to be dismissed, hence, the present revision. [-2-] 3. During the pendency of this revision, parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and they have arrived at consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Revision is disposed of in terms of consent terms. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]