* 1 * WP-2344-2011 22. Nov. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2344 OF 2011 Mr. Rajendra D. Bendkhale .....Petitioner V/s. Shri. Sharad Nathuram Mahimkar & Ors. ......Respondents * * * * * Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamlesh Badgujar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 22nd November, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This petition challenges the order dated 31st March, 2011 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dated 17th June, 2011 passed by the Sessions Court imposing condition on the petitioner for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, concedes that he could not have challenged the order dated 31st March, 2011 of the trial Court in the present petition since the appeal preferred by him against the order is pending in the Sessions Court. The petition therefore, in respect of the challenge to the order dated 31st March, 2011 is not maintainable. 2. The other impugned order dated 17th June, 2011, imposes condition upon the petitioner of deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in the Sessions Court as a * 2 * WP-2344-2011 22. Nov. 2011 condition precedent for suspension of the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner, has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Sessions Court in part compliance of the order. Thereafter, he has filed the present petition. The amount of compensation awarded to be paid by the order of conviction is of Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, the condition imposed upon the petitioner of deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- is a very reasonable condition and does not require any interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since the petitioner is working in a Chemists shop it is impossible for him to deposit the amount. However, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent no.1, the claim of the petitioner that he is an employee in a Chemist shop is inconsistent with his occupation stated in the cause title of the petition. The occupation stated therein is of business. The learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement across the bar that the petitioner was carrying on Chemist business until filing of the appeal and he has subsequently closed the same down on account of financial difficulties. He is however, unable to state any particulars as regards the closure of the business. Since the condition imposed by the impugned order is more than reasonable, the petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]