THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.959 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant within one month, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. The same is questioned by way of filing Crl.A.No.39 of 2011. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2001 under section 389(1) Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court while suspending the execution of the sentence, imposed a condition to pay half of the compensation amount imposed by the trial Court within 7 days. Aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner filed this revision. Heard. The judgment of the trial Court goes to show that the trial Court while directing the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation, observed that in default of payment of the said compensation amount, the petitioner has to suffer imprisonment for a period of 20 days. In those circumstances, in my considered view, the lower appellate Court ought not to have imposed such onerous condition. Therefore, the order of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside to the extent of condition of payment of half of compensation only. In the result, the condition of payment of half of compensation amount imposed by the Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2011 in Crl.A.No.39 of 2011 while granting bail to the petitioner-accused is relaxed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 6th April, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.959 of 2011 6.4.2011