IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.29 OF 2009 Morarji J.Gantra .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.N.V.Marwadi i/b.Smt.Pravina J.Kanani for the Petitioner. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 31ST, 2009. P.C. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Marwadi for the Petitioner and also heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Shinde for the State. 2. It is the petition purported to be filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code requesting this Court to set aside the order dated 16th December, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai in M.A.No.2086 of 2008 taken out in pending criminal Appeal No.677 of 2008. By the said impugned order, Sessions Court while admitting the Criminal Appeal which was against the conviction of the Petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, directed 1 the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within one month from the date of order i.e. from 16th December, 2008 and said Appeal came to be admitted. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he is an old man of 50 years and enable to procure said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Order of learned Sessions Judge of Mumbai directing the Petitioner to deposit only 40 percent of the amount i.e. 2,00,000/- out of the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, within one month. Present Petition is not for asking more time to comply the order of the Sessions Court, but it is for the reduction of the amount within the power with this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court do not find it suitable to alter the said order when dishonored cheque was of Rs.5,00,000/- and infact the proceedings before the Sessions Court in the Appeal is already stayed. It appears that the very purpose of the provisions of the code concerning expeditious trial of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is being frustrated on one count or the other. In the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order of learned Sessions Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. 3. The learned Trial Sessions Court to take appropriate steps in the case according to law. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 2 3