1 HIGH HIGH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2004. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2004. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2004. Rane Computer Consultancy Ltd. & Ors....Petitioner V/s. Mr. Ketan Asher & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri Girish Kulkarni, for petitioner Shri Sanjay Bhatia & Nilesh Pandya, for respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 8, 2005 : APRIL 8, 2005 : APRIL 8, 2005 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Court of Sessions, Gr.Bombay dated March 24 2004, in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2004. The said Criminal Appeal has been filed by the petitioner, before the Sessions Court against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai dated 28th January, 2004 in Case No.1621/S/2002 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. By the impugned order, the Sessions Court has directed to suspend the order of compensation passed by the lower court on condition that the 2 petitioner to deposit cash of Rs. 1 Lakh within four weeks and to give bank guarantee of Rs.5 Lakhs within four weeks. 3. This court entertained the present petition on 9th September, 2004, accepting assurance given by the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs in this court. Mr. Kulkarni, the counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the opportunity given by this court by subsequent order, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs in cash in this court by 19th October, 2004. Zerox copy of the receipt is produced, which is taken on record. 4. The counsel for the private respondent submitted that since the statement is made by Shri Kulkarni across the bar that the amount is deposited, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the said position. He further submits that if the petitioner has already deposited said amount, the private respondent may be permitted to withdraw the same on giving undertaking that the amount will be redeposited, if and when, directed by the appropriate court in that behalf in future. That amount can be withdrawn by the private respondent only after such undertaking to be 3 filed in the Registry of this court. 5. In the circumstances, Revision Application is disposed of, by consent, by passing following order: (i) Petition is allowed by modifying the impugned order to the effect that- as the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs has already been deposited by the petitioner in this court as sufficient compliance, the order directing payment of compensation passed by the lower court will remain suspended till the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Court. (ii) Further, the private respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount, already deposited in this court by the petitioner, on giving undertaking as aforesaid. (iii) The Sessions court will dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2004 as early as possible, as High Court expedited case. (iv) The parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the said case. In the event, the appellate court is of the view that the 4 petitioner is responsible for the delay in hearing of the appeal, pending before it, it will be open to the appellate court to pass appropriate order including vacating Interim relief order operating in favour of the petitioner herein. 6. Ordered accordingly.