1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2009 M.P.Cariappa Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2009 M.P.Cariappa Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents Udaipuri i/by Udaipuri & Co. for applicant. Miss A.J.Javeri, APP for State. Raja B. Thakare for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th June 2009 PC :- 1. The revision applications were earlier argued by the counsel for the applicant and thereafter the revision applications have been adjourned till today for filing of undertakings. In these revision applications, the applicant who is personally present in the Court, has 2 tendered undertakings given on oath. The said undertakings are taken on record and marked "X" and "Y" respectively for identification. In the said undertakings it is stated that the revision applicant is unconditionally withdrawing these two revision applications. 2. The second respondent had filed a complaint against the applicant under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The learned Magistrate directed the applicant to hand over possession of the flat in dispute to the second respondent-complainant within a period of one month from the date of order. The said order of conviction was challenged by the applicant by preferring an appeal. A revision application was filed by the second respondent for enhancement. By common order dated 18th February 2009, the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed and the revision application filed by the second respondent was allowed. The applicant was directed to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month for each month during which the offence has recurrence commencing from 30th June 1998 until the date of restoration of possession of the flat to the company. The applicant was also directed to deliver possession of a car to the second respondent on or before 20th April 2009. 3 3. In the undertaking the applicant has stated that he will vacate the flat and hand over possession thereof to second respondent on or before 31st August 2009. He has stated that he will not create any third party interests and he will not part with possession of the premises. In the second undertaking filed in Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2009 he has stated that he will deposit an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from 1st July 1998 till the date he vacates the flat within a period of one year from today. 4. As far as the car is concerned, the applicant has stated in his undertaking that the documents of the car and the car keys will be handed over to the advocate for the respondent no.2. The advocate for the applicant has accordingly handed over to the advocate for the second respondent in the Court the keys of the car, tax book and registration book of the car. The advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant had not insured the car and, therefore, insurance policy is not handed over. The applicant has stated that the car is parked outside the compound of the building where the flat in question is situated and the applicant has no objection if the car is taken away by the second respondent. 5. The applicant is unconditionally withdrawing the criminal 4 revision applications and hence the orders impugned will stand confirmed. There is a substantial compliance made by the applicant as regards handing over possession of the car and what remains to be done is taking custody of the car by the second respondent. As the criminal revision applications are being unconditionally withdrawn, the orders passed by the Courts below which are impugned here, will attain finality. In view of this position, leniency deserves to be shown to the applicant by granting time for vacating the flat as stated in the undertakings and, therefore, consequential directions will have to be issued. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) Criminal Revision Application Nos.221 of 2009 and 360 of 2009 are dismissed as withdrawn; (b) Criminal Application No.223 of 2009 is dismissed as it does not survive; (c) The undertakings which are taken on record are accepted. The applicant who is present in the Court through his counsel states that the undertakings have been given by him voluntarily and he will abide by the undertakings; (d) In view of the undertakings, time granted by the Sessions Court in terms of clause (4) of the impugned order dated 18th February 5 2009 to hand over vacant possession of the flat is extended till 31st October 2009. It is, therefore, directed that if the applicant fails to comply with the undertaking by handing over vacant possession on or before 31st October 2009, the direction issued to suffer simple imprisonment for two years will become operative and the applicant will have to undergo the sentence accordingly; (e) Time granted by the Sessions Court to the applicant to pay fine @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. from 1st July 1998 till the date of delivery of possession by the applicant is extended till 18th June 2010. If the applicant fails to comply with the requirement of depositing the said amount on or before the time granted by this Court, the consequences noted in the impugned order will follow; (f) It is clarified that as far as direction regarding car is concerned, a substantial compliance has been made by the applicant; (g) The amount of fine shall be deposited by the applicant in the Trial Court. It will be open for the applicant to pay the amount by suitable instalments. (A.S.OKA, J.)