:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3404 OF 2008 Nitin Ramchandra Khaladkar ..Applicant Vs. Nagesh Gopaldas Ahuja and anr. ..Respondents Mr. J.B. Kocheta for applicant. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 12, 2008. Date : November 12, 2008. Date : November 12, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant - original accused and the learned APP for the State. None appears for respondent - original complainant though served. 2. By the Judgment and Order dated 1/8/2008 the learned JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune convicted the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act in Summary Criminal Case No. 2513 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order the applicant was sentenced till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.8,00,000/-, in default to suffer six months RI. :2: 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The applicant also preferred a separate application for suspension of sentence before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 21/8/2008 granted bail and suspended the sentence subject to applicant depositing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-and furnishing bank guarantee for rest of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present application has been preferred. The cheque in question was for Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge could not have directed the applicant to deposit the amount as stated in the order dated 21/8/2008. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and anr. reported in 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 22 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 22 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 22. I have perused the said decision. In the said case when an appeal against the order of conviction under Section 138 of :3: the N.I. Act was preferred by the accused, the Appellate Court, while admitting the appeal directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court while suspending the sentence was entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is a constitutional and statutory right. 5. In the present case, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has not directed the applicant to deposit the amount as a condition to entertain the appeal but the said amount has been directed to be deposited as a condition to the suspension of conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the case relied upon, the Supreme Court had also directed the appellant therein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, this decision would not be of any help to the applicant. However, Looking to the facts of this case, I am inclined to modify the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. :4: 6. The condition of depositing the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is maintained. However, the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- is deleted. The applicant is granted time of one month to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said amount to be deposited before the Sessions Court. 7. Application is disposed of accordingly. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)