*1* 35revn123o21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2021 MANIK VITHALRAO KATMANDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Shri Bhapkar S.L., Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A.A.A. Khan, APP for the Respondent/ State. Shri Swami Mahesh Chandrashekhar a/w Ms. Vaishali S. Swami, Advocates for Respondent No.2/ complainant. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4309 OF 2025 IN REVN/123/2021 VIRBHADRA BHUJANGRAO SWAMI VERSUS MANIK VITHALRAO KATMANDE ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 28 September 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard. 2. By this revision application, the applicant/ accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Appeal No.13/2016 thereby, dismissing the said appeal and maintaining 2026:BHC-AUG:44223 *2* 35revn123o21 the judgment and order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Osmanabad, in SCC No.914/2012 whereby, the applicant came to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned JMFC under the impugned judgment, was pleased to sentence the applicant to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days. In addition to imprisonment, the applicant is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.4.30 lacs to the complainant. 3. It is pointed out that the applicant has already deposited the aforesaid compensation amount. It is stated that Rs.75,000/- were deposited before the Appellate Court and the remaining amount is deposited before this Court. 4. It is also stated that the applicant is aged 80 years. Since the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of compensation, therefore, no purpose would be served by directing to suffer sentence at this stage. 5. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and the impugned judgments. It is evident that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, has found that the charge *3* 35revn123o21 against the applicant has been proved and therefore, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even in the appeal, the Appellate Court, after going through the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, was pleased to maintain the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. After perusal of the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below, I find that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited and that is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Since both the judgments have been passed by correctly applying the principles of law and by appreciating evidence in proper perspective, therefore, I find no merit in the instant revision application. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of compensation and is stated to be aged about 80 years, the substantive sentence of imprisonment deserves to be modified. Hence, I pass the following order:- *4* 35revn123o21 ORDER (a) The conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is hereby maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant is modified. (b) The applicant shall not be required to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The compensation amount of Rs.4,30,000/- already deposited by the applicant shall be paid to the original complainant. (c) The original complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant along with accrued interest. (d) The Criminal Revision Application as well as the Criminal Application are, accordingly, disposed of. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )