IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2010 KRISHNA B. MAYENKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. KAMAKSHI AQUATICS PVT LTD ... Respondent Mr. S. R. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 10th March, 2010 P.C. The above petition has been filed for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was an accused in Criminal Case No. 330/OA/01/C filed by respondent above named, for dishonour of the cheques in question. The said case resulted in conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the said Act. The said conviction was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal which appeal came to be dismissed and the conviction came to be confirmed. 2. It appears that after the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner tendered the amount as ordered by the trial court in two installments. After tendering the said amount, the petitioner filed an application invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the relief that he may not be required to undergo the sentence being Criminal Misc. Application No. 37/2007 in this Court. This Court ( N.A. Britto,J.) rejected the said application, on the application of the law laid down in the unreported judgment dated 23.11.2006 in the case of Prakash Borcar Vs. Sukhalal Kumar. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for compounding the said offence before the learned J.M.F.C. The said application came to be rejected by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji by her order dated 19.11.2008. The sum and substance of the reasons given by the learned J.M.F.C. was that the sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced by this Court and in view thereof, the trial court could not compound the offence by waiving the sentence. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed for compounding the offence on the ground that the petitioner is a aged person and is unwell and apart from paying the amount as ordered by the trial court, has undergone imprisonment for 24 days. The Criminal Misc. application No. 37/2007 of the petitioner having been rejected by this Court by Order dated 28.6.2007, in my view, this Court now cannot consider an application virtually praying for the same relief once again as this would tantamount to this Court sitting in appeal over an order passed by a learned single judge exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction. 5. In my view, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the above petition which is accordingly rejected. R. M. SAVANT, J. MF/-