1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 270 OF 2007 (Pradeepkumar T. Mukherjee & anor..vs..Vidyadhar B. Deshpande -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri P. D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for R-sole. CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th June, 2008 1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Sessions Court imposing certain conditions while suspending the sentences. 2. The order of Sessions Court reads as follows : “ The application is allowed. The execution of substantive sentence of order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,. Special Court, Nagpur dated 6th of March, 2007 in Sum. Cri. Case No. 267/2005, is suspended, pending disposal of the appeal, on executing P. B. and S. B. of Rs.5,000/-each by the appellants/accused, on the condition that the appellant shall deposit the amount of Rs.40,000/- on or before 3rd of May, 2007 towards compensation amount and shall pay or deposit the remaining compensation amount on or before 2nd of June, 2007. Bail before Lower Court.” 3. According to the petitioners, they have deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- furtherance to the order passed by the Court. They further state that the amount payable in relation to transaction between them and the complainant was only for Rs.21,000/- and they would pay 2 the difference amount and order to pay fine be stayed unconditionally. 4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties at length. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners is not able to demonstrate on the basis of personal difficulties of the petitioners due to which it is impossible for him to make deposit. Based on bald and bare statement of inability, does not in any manner inspire confidence. 6. Even on merits no case for stay is made out and any concession better than one already given by Sessions Court cannot be given. Considering factual background, which is proved in the trial Court that the accused was dealing in the transactions which were consist of some components of receipt on account of Cheque which is dishonour. 7. In these premises, the petition does not call for any indulgence. No more reason than the one shown by the Sessions Court, can been shown. 8. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. 9. The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited in this Court be transferred to Sessions Court for disposal according to law. JUDGE andurkar.