SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2011 WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2011 Mr. Iliyas Hakikullah Shah ...Applicant. v. Abdul Bashir Ramzan & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri Ramesh R. Shinde, adv. For the applicant. Shri Ashok V. Rajbhar, adv. For the R.No.1. Smt. R.V.Newton, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Respondent no.1, who is the original complainant and the applicant/accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have compounded the offence and have filed pursis marked ‘X’ alongwith affidavit of complainant/respondent no.1 marked ‘Y’. According to the complainant he is satisfied with the compensation amount, which is already deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.3466/SS/2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted. However, compensation amount deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the complainant. Revision Application stands disposed off accordingly. - 2 - 2 As the revision application itself is finally disposed off, bail application does not survive and also stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2011 WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2011 Mr. Iliyas Hakikullah Shah ...Applicant. v. Abdul Tauhid Ramzan ...Respondent. Shri Ramesh R. Shinde, adv. For the applicant. Shri Ashok V. Rajbhar, adv. For the R.No.1. Smt. R.V.Newton, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Respondent no.1, who is the original complainant and the applicant/accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have compounded the offence and have filed pursis marked ‘X’ alongwith affidavit of complainant/respondent no.1 marked ‘Y’. According to the complainant he is satisfied with the compensation amount, which is already deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence in C.C.No. 3467/SS/2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted. However, compensation amount deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the complainant. Revision Application stands disposed off accordingly. - 2 - 2 As the revision application itself is finally disposed off, bail application does not survive and also stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2011 WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2011 Mr. Iliyas Hakikullah Shah ...Applicant. V. Mr. Liyakat Sharafat Hussain & Anr. ...Respondents Shri Ramesh R. Shinde, adv. For the applicant. Shri Ashok V. Rajbhar, adv. For the R.No.1. Smt. R.V.Newton, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Respondent no.1, who is the original complainant and the applicant/accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have compounded the offence and have filed pursis marked ‘X’ alongwith affidavit of complainant/respondent no.1 marked ‘Y’. According to the complainant he is satisfied with the compensation amount, which is already deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.3468/SS/08 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted. However, compensation amount deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the complainant. Revision Application stands disposed - 2 - off accordingly. 2 As the revision application itself is finally disposed off, bail application does not survive and also stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2011 WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2011 Mr. Iliyas Hakikullah Shah ...Applicant. v. Akhtar Ramzan Khan ...Respondent. Shri Ramesh R. Shinde, adv. For the applicant. Shri Ashok V. Rajbhar, adv. For the R.No.1. Smt. R.V.Newton, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Respondent no.1, who is the original complainant and the applicant/accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have compounded the offence and have filed pursis marked ‘X’ alongwith affidavit of complainant/respondent no.1 marked ‘Y’. According to the complainant he is satisfied with the compensation amount, which is already deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.3469/SS/2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Accused is acquitted. However, compensation amount deposited by the accused before the Sessions Court shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the complainant. Revision Application stands disposed off accordingly. - 2 - 2 As the revision application itself is finally disposed off, bail application does not survive and also stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)