IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 706 OF 2010 Umesh V. Bhatia & Ors. ..... ..... ... Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & ..... ..... ..Respondents. Mr.Udaya Sankar Samudrala, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Adv. For respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. The petitioners take exception to the order passed by the learned Appellate Court thereby imposing condition of deposit of Rs.20 lacs as condition precedent for suspension of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. 2. The Petitioners have been convicted for offences punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay find of Rs.27 lacs. Out of the said fine amount Rs.25,90,612/- was to be paid to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Bombay. Along with the appeal an application for suspension of sentence is also filed. While allowiwng the application a condition has been imposed upon the appellant directing him to deposit Rs.20 lacs within a period of four 1 weeks from the date of the order i.e. 24.2.2010. Out of the said sum of Rs.20 lacs Rs.5 lacs were to be deposited within two weeks from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that condition which requires deposit of RS.20 lacs is too harsh and is not in consonance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahendra & Co. Ltd. 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 28. 4. Mr.Mundargi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the said submission. He submits that the petitioners have not shown any bonafide by depositing even the amount of RS.5 lacs and therefore no interference is warranted. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Dilip Dahanukar (supra) has held that though the appellate court may impose certain conditions while suspending the sentence however the condition should not be too harsh. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dahanukar various benches of this Court have directed sentence to be suspended on deposit of 25% of the find amount. 6. In that view of the matter I find the condition which requires petitioners to deposit Rs.20 lacs is too harsh and not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dilip Dahanukar’s case (supra). 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute partly.. The condition imposed by learned Sessions Judge requiring the petitioners to deposit Rs.20 lacs is modified and instead petitioners are directed to deposit sum of RS.7 lacs as condition precedent for suspension of sentence. Time granted by the 2 appellate court to deposit the amount is extended by four weeks from today. Petitioner at this stage makes oral request that security could not be furnished by the petitioner inadvertently which was required to be furnished by yesterday. Period for furnishing bond is extended by one week. Needless to state that whatever has been deposited would be taken into consideration while considering deposit of aforesaid amount of Rs.7 lacs. 11.3.2010. 3