1 Crim.WP No.1663/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1663 OF 2010 Arun Vishnu Mahajan ...Petitioner vs. Jaideep J. Pawar & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul S. Kolnoorkar for the Petitioner. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr.D.S. Joshi for Respondent No.1. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2010 Arun Vishnu Mahajan ...Petitioner vs. Subhash N. Gavande & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul S. Kolnoorkar for the Petitioner. Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for the State. Mr.D.S. Joshi for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 4, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 2 Crim.WP No.1663/2010 Sessions Court directing him to deposit the entire amount of fine awarded by the trial court, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 Brief facts are that the two criminal complaints were filed by respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the petitioner herein in both these complaints which were filed by two different complainants. The trial court after convicting the petitioner sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- in each case. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed two separate appeals in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, however, as a condition for granting stay to the order of conviction and sentence was pleased to direct the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of fine. 3 Crim.WP No.1663/2010 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount directed to be deposited is not a reasonable amount and secondly, he expressed his inability on account of financial constraints to deposit the amount. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Sessions Court may be confirmed and at the highest, he has been asked to deposit at least Rs.90,000/- which is the amount of the cheque in different case. 4 I have heard both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. In my view, the condition imposed by the Sessions Court in both these cases is not reasonable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a driver working with the Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation and as such, he is not in a position to pay the entire amount of fine of Rs.1,10,000/- each. 4 Crim.WP No.1663/2010 It is submitted that a reasonable amount may be directed to be paid by the petitioner. 5 In my view, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is directed to pay amount of Rs.25,000/- each in both these cases within a period of six weeks from today. Order accordingly. 6 Writ Petition, accordingly, is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)