1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.325 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATIONS NO.299 OF 2009, 301 OF 2009 & 303 OF 2009 Arun Sonawaldas Thakur & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. Pyarali Manjibhai Govani & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr.S.G. Sajnani Advocate for respondentno.1 Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for State. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th August 2009 PC : 1. This is the common order on the above three Criminal Revision Applications filed to challenge the identical order passed by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Appeals to challenge orders of conviction for the offence committed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision applications are opposed by respondents. Heard both the counsels for final hearing of the Criminal Revision Applications. Applicant No.1 is the proprietor of applicant no.2. 2 2. The applicants filed three appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 191 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2007 in Sessions Court to challenge their conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeals were admitted on 26th March 2007 and the appellants were directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- in each appeal on or before the next date of the matter, on such deposit, the order of substantive sentence was stayed and applicant no.1 was released on bail on fresh bail bond. Thereafter the appeals appeared for hearing before the Sessions Court on 15 dates when for some reason or other, the applicant did not proceed with the hearing of the appeal. On 7th November 2008, learned Advocate for the applicant filed an application seeking withdrawal of his appearance on the ground that despite specific intimations, the applicant had not been contacting the learned Advocate and giving the necessary instructions to him. The learned Advocate by his letter dated 27th October 2008 had asked the applicant to attend the Court on 7th November 2008, but applicant did not remain present and did not give any instructions to his lawyer. The Sessions Court allowed the application for withdrawal of appearance by the learned Advocate. Thereafter it dismissed the appeals on the ground of absence of the applicant as well as on the ground of non 3 compliance with the order directing the applicant to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- each in the three Appeals. It is admitted position that the applicant had deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- in only one of the appeals. 3. Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeals being criminal appeals, could not have been dismissed by the Sessions Court, either on the ground of absence of the applicant or on the ground of non compliance with the directions to deposit of amount. According to him, it was incumbent on the part of the Sessions Court to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. Mr. Sajnani, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the conduct of the applicant of playing traunt with the Court has been so right from the trial proceedings. He submits that the applicant was similarly remaining absent before the trial Court. By remaining absent, at both stages he had protracted the legal proceedings causing prejudice to the respondent. 5. The impugned orders cannot be sustained, since it was necessary for learned Sessions Judge to dispose off the criminal appeals on merits, if necessary even with the 4 assistance of the learned A.P.P. Further it appears that during pendency of the present applications, the applicants have deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Appeal No.192 of 2007 and 193 of 2007 also. The respondent must however be compensated with costs of the present applications. 6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Applications are allowed. The order dated 7th November 2008 is hereby set aside on condition that the applicants pay costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- in each case to respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. The Sessions Court to hear the appeals and dispose off the same on or before 30th September 2009. Parties to appear before the Sessions Court on 25th August 2009. 7. In view of the disposal of the revision applications, the Criminal Applications No.299 of 2009, 301 of 2009 & 303 of 2009 do not survive, the same are accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)