1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2009 Mr.Anish Vasu Kayadnath. ..Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, APP for State. Mr.I.B.Sonawane for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. Leave. This revision application is for challenging the concurrent order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 26/6/2007 in C.C.No.1/SS/06 and by the learned Sessions Judge dated 5/5/2009 in Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2007; thereby upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Mr.Mundargi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant could not engage a lawyer before the learned Trial Court. He submits that in this factual background, the learned Magistrate 2 ought to have provided a lawyer to the Applicant from the panel of legal aid. He submits that by not doing so, the applicant has been deprived of an opportunity to defend the case properly. He therefore submits that the matter needs to be remanded to the learned Trial Court so that the Applicant can have an opportunity to defend his case properly. 3. From perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, so also the learned Appellate Court, it can be seen that the evidence of the complainant regarding issuance of cheque, dishonour thereof, service of the notice and failure on the part of the Accused has gone challenged. If the Applicant has chosen not to engage a lawyer nor to make an application before the learned Trial Court for providing lawyer from legal aid, the concurrent orders cannot be faulted with. On perusal of the order impugned passed by the Trial Court, so also by the Appellate Court, it can be seen that they are passed on proper appreciation of the evidence. It is also found that ingredient to constitute offence under section 138 of N.I.Act were duly established. 4. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 5. However, from the record it is seen that the Applicant was taken in 3 custody on 5th May, 2009 and was in custody till 16th January, 2010. The Applicant has therefore, undergone sentence of almost 8 months and 11 days. While sentencing the Applicant, the learned Trial Court has directed the Applicant to pay Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in each case. The Applicant has deposited total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- in each of the case. Taking into consideration that the Applicant has almost undergone entire period of sentence i.e. 6 months towards the sentence and about 2 months 11 days on account of non-payment of compensation, I find that it would not be in the interest of justice to send back the Applicant to prison, inasmuch as he has already paid part of the compensation amount. 6. In that view of the matter, while upholding the order of sentence, I am inclined to partly allow the Revision Application by reducing the sentence to one which has already been undergone by the Applicant. At the same time, the Respondent is granted liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) already deposited in the Trial Court. (B.R.GAVAI,J)