1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.54/2008 DATE OF ORDER :: March 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P.for the State. None present, for respondent No.2 though served. BY THE COURT: Mr.Narendra Moolchandani appears for respondent State. No one appears for respondent No.2 though served. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.05/2008 to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. The trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.7,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Buildings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 416; and a decision of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (1) DCR 526. In Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the accused therein was sentenced with the imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,00,000/-. While suspending the sentence of imprisonment and fine, the High Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/-. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that 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 and the order of the High Court was held to be justified. 3 Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala (supra). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Appellate Court was not justified in directing the petitioner-accused to deposit a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. In my view, the ends of justice would be met in modifying the condition of depositing the amount instead of Rs.3,75,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within fifteen days from today. Consequently, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner-appellant by the trial Court will remain suspended, provided the petitioner submits the personal bond and the surety bond as directed by the Appellate Court and also deposits a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as the part of fine amount. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court are maintained. With these modification, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/- 4 S.B.Cr.Misc. Stay Petition No.104/2008 In S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.54/2008 (Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : March 25, 2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Niranjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P.for the State. None present, for respondent No.2 though served. Since the main petition has itself been disposed of, stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-