1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 339 /2006 (Gangadhar nadeo Bondre vs. Sandeep Andaraskar and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr K V Bhoskar, Adv.h/for V M Deshpande,Adv.for applicant Mr R S Akbani, Adv.for Respondent No.1 Mr. Rode APP for Respondent -State CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : 1st October, 2010. 1. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th November 2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Special Court under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Nagpur in summary Criminal Complaint Case no.2324/2001 (old) which was subsequently renumbered as Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.4159/2005(new) as also the judgment and order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 132/2005. 2. By the order dated 9th November 2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days. The applicant was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under section 357 of 2 the Cr.P.C. In default to pay compensation, it will be recoverable by a person in Civil court. After deposit of the compensation amount, the amount shall be paid to the respondent no.1/original complainant, after the appeal period was over and subject to result of appeal, if any. 3. It is not in dispute that the applicant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. He preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 20.12.2006. These two orders were challenged by the applicant by way of above Revision application. 4. By order dated 29.12.2006 this Court had issued notice in Revision Application. Insofar as Criminal application No.4142/2006 is concerned, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents and on condition of the applicant depositing Rs. 20,000/- within a period of two weeks in the trial Court, the execution of sentence was suspended and the applicant was released on bail. Subsequently, the applicant did not press this application on the ground that the applicant had already undergone the entire sentence. Accordingly Cri. Application No. 4142/2006 was dismissed as not pressed. 5. The matter was heard for final hearing. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant has already undergone sentence which was also recorded in the order dated 23.2.2007 in Cri. Application No.4142/2006, the revision has become infructuous and he is not pressing the same. 3 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Revision is dismissed as infructuous. JUDGE sahare