IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 267 of 2010 Rajesh Jadli S/o Sri Kishan Chandra Jadli R/o Patel Marg, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Dehradun. 2. M/s Sidhbali Motors through its Proprietors Ravindra Singh Chauhan Nazibabad Road, Kotdwar, Pauri. ……….Respondents. Shri Kurban Ali, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for State/respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 17.03.2010, whereby a condition has been imposed to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- in court for staying operation of the order, passed by Magistrate, challenged in criminal appeal No. 09 of 2010, Rajesh Jadli Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties present. 3. Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner-Rajesh Jadli, was convicted vide judgment 2 and order dated 17.03.2010, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, in criminal case No. 330 of 2009, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/. Said order was challenged by the present petitioner before the appellate court (Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal), who admitted the criminal appeal No. 09 of 2010. However, on stay application, the appellate court directed that if the appellant deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of 20 days, the execution of the impugned order, passed by the trial court, shall remain stayed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh, is too heavy to be deposited and such condition would render the criminal appeal infructuous. The amount mentioned in the cheque, which was dishonoured was Rs. 4,65,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakh (instead of Rs. 2.5 lakh) as a condition precedent for stay of execution of the order, challenged in the appeal, would meet the ends of justice. 5. Therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of summarily directing the 3 petitioner to deposit Rs. 1.5 lakhs within a period of fifteen days from today before the appellate court (Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal), in criminal appeal No. 09 of 2010, as a condition precedent for staying execution of the order, challenged in said appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 17.03.2010, passed on stay application by said appellate court shall stand modified. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:30.03.2010 Sweta