1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.351 OF 2008 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO,.228 OF 2005 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2008 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.229 OF 2005 S. Jaychandran Salai Nadar. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.R. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 8TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. By order dated 8th September, 2008, Criminal Application No.351 of 2008 and Criminal Application No.352 of 2008 came to be disposed of. In para-2 of the said order, the amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs is reflected. 3. It is made clear that in the matter pertaining to Criminal Application No.351 of 2008 an amount of Rs.4 lakhs was to be deposited and in 2 the matter pertaining to Criminal Application No.352 of 2008 an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs had to be deposited. The total amount of these two cases which comes to Rs.7.5 lakhs is reflected in para-2 & 3 of the order. Now, the amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs has been deposited by the applicant in both the matters i.e. Rs.4 lakh in the matter pertaining to Criminal Application No.351 of 2008 and Rs.3.5 lakhs in the matter pertaining to Criminal Application No.352 of 2008. 4. In order dated 8th September, 2008, the respondent complainant was permitted to withdraw the amount. Respondent No.2 i.e. the respective complainant in both the matters are different. Respective complainants are permitted to withdraw the amount which has been deposited as per the amount involved in their respective cases. 5. In the last sentence, in para-3 of the said order, inadvertently, number of revision application is mentioned as 288 of 2005, the same is corrected and it shall be read as Revision Application No.228 of 2005. 6. Order dated 8th September, 2008 is clarified as above. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]