Court on the decision of this Court in the case of Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra2, is completely misplaced. 2 (2013) 6 SCC 770 4SLPR 2653-54/2016 14 In such circumstances referred to above, Mr Raval prayed that the impugned judgment of the High Court be set aside and the respondents be asked to undergo sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment. 15 On the other hand, these appeals have been vehemently opposed by Mr Purvish Malkan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original accused persons). He would submit that no error much less an error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. He also submitted that it’s been now twelve years since the incident had occurred. He also submitted that the amount of Rs 5 lakh has been deposited before the trial court. 16 In such circumstances referred to above, he prayed that there being no merit in these appeals, the same may be dismissed. ANALYSIS 17 Having heard