- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.800 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.800 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.800 OF 2009 Mr.Kirit Mehta ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Rekha Singota for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent appearing in person (original complainant). The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the second respondent for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The cheque amount is Rs.5,20,425/-. By a Judgment and Order dated 12th February 2009 the petitioner was convicted. He was directed to pay fine of Rs.8,00,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal and pending the appeal, an application was moved by him for suspension of the sentence. On 16th January 2009, sentence was suspended by the Sessions Court subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within one month. The present petition has been filed on 31st March 2009 for challenging the direction issued by the Sessions Court to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in case of Dilip Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Ltd. (2000 Cri.L.J. 2417 (SC). - 2 - He submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Diabetes and hypertension and therefore, he is not in a position to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 2. I have carefully considered the submission. The grounds which are pleaded in this court were not pleaded in the Sessions Court. Apart from this, the conduct of the petitioner will have to be considered. On 16th January 2009, impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Roznama of the proceeding shows that on 5th March 2009, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to comply with the order. On the said application time of 3 weeks was granted by the Sessions Court. Only thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 3. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Dilip Dahanukar (supra) the amount fixed by the Sessions appears to be a reasonable amount. However, time deserves to be granted to deposit the said amount. 4. Hence, I pass the following order : - 3 - i) Petition is rejected. However, time to deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is extended till 15th June 2009 subject to condition that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be deposited by the petitioner with the sessions Court on or before 15th May 2009. On the failure of the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within stipulated time, order dated 16th January 2009 passed by the Sessions Court will stand vacated. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE