IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1303 OF 2008. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders. orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Neelam Nikale,i/b. Vijay Gharat & Suresh More, for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. K.R. Iyengar, for the Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17th September 2008. : 17th September 2008. : 17th September 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The petitioner is an accused in a complaint filed by the second respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate. Apart from the substantive sentence of six months, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. An appeal against the order of conviction was filed by the petitioner. The appeal was admitted and substantive sentence was suspended subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with the Appellate Court on or before 15th April 2008. : 2 : 2. Aforesaid order dated 17th March 2008 has been impugned by the petitioner by filing this petition. The contention is that the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- ordered to be deposited by the Appellate Court is unreasonable and the same deserves to be reduced. The office noting shows that in terms of order dated 29th July 2008 passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Dilip S.Dahanukar v/s. Kotam Mahindra Co.Ltd. and another [2007 (6) SCC 528 ] held that while suspending substantive sentence for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a condition can be imposed by the Appellate Court of deposit of a reasonable amount. The Apex Court held that unreasonable amount cannot be ordered to be deposited as such a direction will defeat the right of appeal of the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has already been deposited by the petitioner appears to be reasonable and therefore, to that extent, the : 3 : impugned order needs modification. 5. Hence,, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order :- (1) Clause 2 of the impugned order dated 17th March 2008 is modified and instead of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the petitioner will have to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. As stated earlier, the said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. Hence, the sentence will remain suspended till the disposal of the appeal. (2) the learned Sessions Court will dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. (3) All contentions of the parties in the pending appeal are kept open. (A.S.Oka, J)