Pradip Sanatkumar Dixit v. The State Of Maharashtra

15. REVN 404 of 2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 404 OF 2017 ALONGWITH REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2017 Pradip Sanatkumar Dixit ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondents

***** None for the Applicant None for the Respondent No. 2 Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM :

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

12th JANUARY 2024 P. C. :- 1.

There is conviction of simple imprisonment for one month and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed before the Appellate Court. 2.

Initially, writ petition was filed. Lateron, it is converted into Revision application. On 19/07/2017, this Court has taken note of the settlement in between parties. The consent terms were signed by wife of the Petitioner/convicted accused and that time the Applicant was in jail. On the basis of the by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2024.01.16 13:09:43 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Seema 1/2

15. REVN 404 of 2017.doc settlement, bail was granted to the Applicant. 3.

There is a direction to the Applicant to sign the consent terms. The copy of the Consent terms dated 19/07/2017 is on record.

4.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner and for Respondent No. 2 have signed it and wife of the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 is also signed it. There are certain terms about payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of installments. Thereafter, there are not effective orders. In fact what will be the effect of the consent terms on the conviction needs to be looked into. However, since then no one has appeared. Even their respective Advocates are not present. The consent terms is evidence of the settlement.

5.

So I find no reason to keep this revision application pending. Hence revision application is disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Seema 2/2