S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.853/2007 Date : 24.07.2007 HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Mr. Vineet Jain for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor for the State. Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court convicted accused petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also gave him liberty to prefer appeal and application for suspension of sentence and for one month his sentence was suspended. He also submits that learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 09.05.2007 suspended the sentence of the accused petitioner but inadvertently the lawyer noted the date which is beyond 30 days, therefore, the order could not be produced regarding suspension of sentence before the learned trial court. According to learned counsel, the trial court after lapse of one month time forfeited the bail bonds and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were drawn and warrant of arrest was issued. Learned counsel contends that fact of the matter is that after conviction the Appellate Court suspended the sentence of the accused petitioner on 09.05.2007 but inadvertently the lawyer noted the date wrongly who is conducting the case in the trial court. In last, he submits that now atleast it may be directed to the trial court to comply with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 09.05.2007. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition. After having considered the submissions made before me, I find that the trial court by its order already suspended the sentence for a period of 30 days and the order of the Appellate Court is dated 09.05.2007, therefore, it was beyond 30 days, and trial court did not release the petitioner, in above of circumstances, the fact will remains the Appellate Court has already suspended the sentence, therefore, the petitioner is partly accepted and the trial court release the petitioner on bail on the terms and conditions imposed by the appellate court vide its order dated 09.05.2007. The petition stand disposed of. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J.