1 98.11-revn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2011 Satish Waman Patkar. ... Applicant. V/s. K.Kantaswamy and another. ... Respondents. Nanda B. Kadukar for the applicant. Javed Hussein for respondent No.1. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 9th August 2011. P.C. : By Criminal Revision Application No.98/2011, the applicant challenges the order dated 1st February 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 405/2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 24th June 2008 in C.C.No.466/SS/2003 thereby convicting the accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directing him to pay the compensation of the cheque amount in the sum of Rs.78,000/-. 2. By Criminal Revision Application No.99/2011, the applicant challenges the order dated 1st February 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 406/2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai thereby 2 98.11-revn dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 24th June 2008 in C.C.No.-467/SS/2003 thereby convicting the accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directing him to pay the compensation of the cheque amount in the sum of Rs.75,000/-. 3. The applicant has already deposited Rs.25,000/- in the trial Court. Further as directed by this Court vide order dated 3rd May 2011, the applicant has deposited entire balance amount in this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1- complainant fairly states that in view of deposit of entire amount, the respondent- complainant is not interested in conviction of the present applicant. 5. In the above view of the matter, the order of conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offence charged. Bail bond of the applicant stands cancelled. The respondent- complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant in the trial Court as well as in this Court. 6. Accordingly, both the criminal revision applications are disposed off in terms of this order. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)