M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.

1. First four Writ Petitions arise out of orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos.495 of 2005, 496 of 2005, 497 of 2005 and 498 of 2005, respectively. Next three Writ Petitions have arisen out of orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos.18 of 2006, 19 of 2006 and 20 of 2006, respectively.

2. In all 7 Criminal Cases were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against present Petitioners. Out of these 7 cases, four cases were filed by Respondent/Complainant Meena C. Somaiya, and three were filed by Respondent/Complainant Kanubhai Thakkar, in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Petitioner No.1 M/s Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agency is a Private Limited Company and Petitioner No.2 was one of the Directors of the company.

3. Both the Petitioners have been convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused No.1 M/s Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agency was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in each case. The accused No.2 was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- in Criminal Case No.257/SS/2005, Rs.2,25,000/- in Criminal Case No.1942/SS/2005, Rs.3,00,000/-in case No.589/SS/2005, Rs.1,50,000/- each in case Nos.1282/SS/2005, 102/SS/2005 and 248/SS/2005, and Rs.3,00,000/- in Criminal Case No.587/SS/2005. As such the accused No.2 i.e. the Petitioner No.2 Nandlal Thakkar was also to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine Rs.14,50,000/-. Out of said Rs.14,50,000/-, a part of the amount in each case was also to be paid to the State Government and rest of the amount was to be paid to respective complainants by way of compensation. As such complainant Mr. Kanu Thakkar, was entitled to Rs.5,60,000/- by way of compensation and the other complainant Meena Somayya was to receive Rs.7,80,000/- by way of compensation.

4. Both the complainants having not satisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate, moved the Sessions Court by filing separate 7 Revision Applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the order of fine and the compensation. However, he had enhanced the sentence of Simple Imprisonment from till rising of the Court to three months in group of four cases and to six months in a group of three cases. It is this order of learned Additional Sessions Judge which is being challenged in the present Writ Petitions by the Petitioners.

5. Heard Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel Mr. Harshad A. Sathe, for the Respondent No.2 (original complainants). During the course of arguments, learned counsel Mr. Marwadi, for the Petitioners has submitted that an amount of compensation and fine could have been paid by the Petitioner on the date of judgment of trial Court itself. The Respondents refused to accept the same. The position as on today is that the Petitioners have paid an amount of fine as well as compensation to be paid to the Complainants in the trial Court. The Petitioners have deposited another amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in this Court pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. As such total amount deposited by the Petitioners in the trial Court as well as in this Court comes to Rs.20,50,000/-. Out of this, an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- will go to the State Government by way of fine. Rest of the amount that comes to Rs.19,45,000/- will be the compensation amount. The fine amount is admittedly near about double the amount of cheque.

6. Learned counsel Mr. Marwardi has submitted that in view of the fact that amount of compensation is now about double the amount of cheques, this court may maintain the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondents original Co