: 1 : A-608-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.608 OF 2011 Abdul Sattar Mohammed Hasan Shaikh .. Applicant v/s. M/s. Industrial Ester & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Ms. Vrishali Raje i/b Prakash Naik for the applicant Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for respondent State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 11th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in C.C. No. 6952/SS/2010 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 50th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai by judgment and order dated 5th May, 2011. As per the said judgment the applicant is permitted to pay a sum of Rs.88 lakhs as a compensation within a month, in default he will undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months. In addition to the above, he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. : 2 : A-608-11=.doc 2. This order of conviction is challenged by the present applicant by filing Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2011 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The applicant had filed Miscellaneous Application No.1108 of 2011 for suspension of sentence of imprisonment and payment of fine or compensation. The learned Additional Session Judge has by order dated 6th June, 2011 has directed to applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as a part compensation within a period of 2 months from 6th June, 2011. The applicant challenged this order. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is a poor person and he would be able to deposit a sum of 1 or 2 lakhs only. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon on the judgment in the case of Vijay D. Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2008(1) DCR 17 to contend that the Court should not pass such order which would deprive a person who has been convicted of his right to appeal. She also relied upon judgment in the case of Arunkumar s/o Vishwanathappa Devane Vs. M/s. Chinnubhai Chimanlal & Co. reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 588. According to her, the Court should pass an amount by taking reasonable and liberal approach. I have considered the relevant facts and the judgments cited and mentioned above. The amount of : 3 : A-608-11=.doc compensation ordered to be paid is Rs.88 lakhs. The learned Additional Session Judge has directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.33 lakhs. This means that the applicant is permitted to deposit an amount less than 50%. In my view, learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at reasonable figure, looking to the amount of compensation, which is ordered to be paid. The stand of the applicant that he is a poor person cannot be accepted particularly when after getting full opportunity to face the trial, he has been convicted. The aforesaid view is taken by me by going through the judgment in the case of Arunkumar s/o Vishwanathappa Devane Vs. M/s. Chinnubhai Chimanlal & Co. (Supra). 4. Insofar as the stand of the applicant that if an amount is fixed which he would not be able to pay would deprive him of his right to appeal, cannot be accepted because if the amount ordered to be deposited is not paid, at the most, the applicant will be taken into the custody. He shall free to press his appeal and goahead. 5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned aforesaid, I do not wish to interfere in the order dated 6th May, 2011. If the applicant deposits Rs.30 lakhs in the Session Court within 2 months from 6th June, 2011, it would be alright. If the applicant is fails to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs : 4 : A-608-11=.doc within 2 months from 6th June, 2011, he shall surrender before appropriate Authority. If the applicant does not surrender, the concerned Authority shall issue warrant of arrest. The application is accordingly rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)