1 CRA-126-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2011 Tima Govind Manjrekar ... Applicant (Orig. accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Gavai i/b. Rishi Bhuta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. Vilas A.Sawant, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd March, 2011. P.C. 1. The Consent Terms marked "X" and the application for compounding marked "Y" are filed by the parties. The consent terms are signed by the respondent No.2-complainant and his Advocate and the son of the applicant- accused, who is presently in Jail, and his advocate. Application for compounding the case is signed by the Advocate for accused/applicant and by the respondent No.2 and his advocate. The parties admit the contents. The complainant has received full cheque amount from the son of the accused-applicant. Therefore, the parties are allowed to compound the case under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 CRA-126-11.sxw 2. In the result, the impugned order of conviction and sentence in CC No.951/SS/2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Borivli, is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 3. As the Revision Application is finally disposed of, bail application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)