1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 627/2007 (Manoj Kumar Mittal V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 26/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. V.K.Bhadu, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R.Mehta, public prosecutor for the State. Mr. M.K.Garg for the respondent No.2 BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner seeks to modify the order dated 20.6.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 106/07 whereby the appellate court while suspending the sentence directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- 10% of the total amount of fine imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction to the extent directing the petitioner to deposit 1/10 of the total amount of fine amount is erroneous. The controversy involved in the instant case stands concluded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. 2 M/s Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another AIR 2001 SC 659 wherein Apex Court held as under :- “We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition.” In this view of the matter, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition has no merit and it is therefore, dismissed. However, the appellate court is directed to decide the appeal utmost expeditiously. Since the revision petition itself has been dismissed, the bail application also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp