1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2221 OF 2009 WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2222 OF 2009 Raosaheb Mahavir Chimanna ...Petitioner Versus Abhay Prabhakar Lele & Anr. ...Respondents IN BOTH MATTERS: Mr. I.M. Khairdi for the Petitioner Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni i/by Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent No. 1 Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE: MARCH 12, 2010 P.C.:- The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, dated 10th February, 2009, vide which the order of sentence passed against respondent No.1 has been stayed. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has granted blanket stay. He submits that since the conviction was for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have imposed certain conditions regarding deposit of percentage of compensation / fine amount as a condition precedent for suspending the sentence. He submits that the petitioner has lost his possession, and he is also deprived of the monies, which he is entitled to on account of his illegal dispossession. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, while passing the orders impugned, has specifically observed that the order of blanket stay was granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It has been observed that, prima facie, it was found that there was no legally enforceable right on the date of execution. 3 4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-accused, on instructions of respondent No.1, who is personally present in the Court, makes a statement that the property in dispute, against which, the payment was to be made to the petitioner, is not in possession of respondent No.1-accused, and that respondent No.1-accused is also not claiming any possession of the said property. 5. I find that normally when an order of suspension of sentence is passed, it is expected that while exercising the discretion, certain conditions should be imposed. However, the order of suspension of sentence is a discretionary order. In a given case, the learned Sessions Judge would be empowered to pass an order of suspension of sentence without imposing any condition, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. In the present case, it can be seen that the grievance of the petitioner, insofar as the property being in possession of respondent No.1-accused is concerned, does not survive, in view of the specific statement made on behalf of respondent No.1-accused. In any case, the learned 4 Sessions Judge has given cogent and sound reasons as to why an order of such an exceptional nature was being passed. 6. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petitions are rejected. 7. Needless to say that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the applications for suspension of sentence and while considering the appeals on their merits are, prima facie, in nature. B.R. GAVAI, J.