[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.905 OF 2008 Dr.Pankaj C.Gandhi ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.A.Mehta Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae for petitioner Mr.Rohit Sanghani in person for Respondent no.2 Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned amicus curiae for the petitioner-original accused, respondent no.2-complainant in person and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2006 passed in CC No.93 of 2003 (Old Case No.507 of 1996), the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Pune convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was sentenced to SI for nine months and to pay a compensation of Rs.8 [-2-] lakhs to the complainant i/d SI for three months. It may be stated here that the cheque amount was Rs.5 lakhs. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge suspended the substantive punishment of imprisonment by order dated 30.8.2006. The question relating to directions as regards the depositing of the compensation amount was kept open. In the meanwhile, the complainant preferred application (Exh.20) dated 31.12.2007 and prayed for directions to the appellant to deposit the entire amount of compensation as ordered by the trial Court. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in 2001 DCR page No.14 (Stan Ley Felix 2001 DCR page No.14 (Stan Ley Felix 2001 DCR page No.14 (Stan Ley Felix Pinto V/s. Jangid Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.) Pinto V/s. Jangid Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.) Pinto V/s. Jangid Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.). It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision that "while suspending the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court should normally impose appropriate condition as regards part payment of the fine within prescribed period." [-3-] The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that "there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in the said condition. After hearing both sides, the Sessions Court directed the appellant i.e. the present petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation in the Court. The said amount was to be deposited within a period of 20 days from the date of the order. It was also stated that the direction to deposit 50% of the amount is a condition precedent to the stay of substantive sentence of imprisonment and non-compliance of the said direction to deposit 50% of the amount would result into order dated 30.8.2006 being automatically vacated. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 5.4.2008, this petition has been preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sessions Court has not applied its mind to the fact whether it was possible for the petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation. He submitted that the Court should direct deposit of amount which is reasonable and possible for the accused to deposit. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dilip Dahanukar V/s. Kotak Dilip Dahanukar V/s. Kotak Dilip Dahanukar V/s. Kotak [-4-] Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another; (2007) 6 Supreme Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another; (2007) 6 Supreme Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another; (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 528. Court Cases 528. Court Cases 528. I have perused the said judgment. In the said judgment also, it is observed that it will be for the appellate Court to stay the direction for payment of compensation which would necessarily mean that some conditions may be imposed therefor. In the said decision, it is further observed that part of the compensation may be directed to be deposited but the same must be a reasonable amount. As stated earlier, the amount of cheque was Rs.5 lakhs. The learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. Looking to the fact that the order directing to pay the compensation was dated 31.7.2006 and today i.e. almost after ten years directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs i.e. 50% of the amount of compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable. Hence, no interference is called for. Writ petition is rejected. 5. On the request of the petitioner, this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. Interim protection granted earlier to continue for a period of four weeks from today. [-5-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]