IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.569 OF 2008. Shri Ratan H. Banka & Anr. ..Applicants. versus Shri Krishna Petro Yarns Ltd.& Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, for the Applicants. Mr. Laxman Kanal, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. : 15th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent. In terms of order dated 5th August 2008, this Application is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The Applicants are accused nos.4 and 6 in the complaint filed by the first Respondent alleging offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1881’). The cheque amount of the disputed cheque is Rs.50 lacs. The learned Trial Judge convicted the Applicants and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The Applicants were : 2 : also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs and in default of payment of compensation, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 3. The Applicants preferred an appeal against the order of conviction which was admitted. The substantive sentence was suspended subject to Applicants depositing a sum of Rs.25 lacs with the Trial Court. The challenge in this Application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to the said direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the order dated 29th January 2008 directing the Applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as a condition of suspension of substantive sentence. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants is that considering the role alleged against the Applicants in the complaint and considering the fact that the Applicants have been held guilty only by invoking section 141 of the said Act of 1881, the amount of Rs.25 lacs fixed by the Sessions Court cannot be said to be reasonable. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v/s Kotak Mahindra Company Limited and Another [(2007) 6 SCC 528]. The learned Counsel appearing for : 3 : the first Respondent submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. He submitted that the amount fixed by the Sessions Court is reasonable. In the alternative, he submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the Applicants be directed to deposit a minimum amount of Rs.10 lacs. 5. I have considered the submissions. The total sum of Rs.6,25,000/- has been already deposited by the Applicants in terms of the orders dated 28th February 2008 and 22nd July 2008 passed by this Court. The Applicants have been arraigned as the accused in their capacity as Directors of the first accused which is a Limited Company. For convicting the Applicants, section 141 of the said Act of 1881 has been invoked. In the case of Dilip Dahanukar (supra), the Apex Court has held that as a condition for suspending substantive sentence while admitting the appeal against the order of conviction under section 138 of the said Act of 1881, the Appellate Court can impose a condition of depositing a reasonable amount towards the compensation. In the present case, apart from the Applicants, the other three Directors were arraigned as the accused and trial against the said accused as well as the Company has been : 4 : separated. The cheque amount is Rs.50,00,000/- Considering the findings recorded by the Trial Court and all other aspects of the matter, the Applicants will have to deposit a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as a condition for suspension of substantive sentence. As the Applicants have already deposited the sum of Rs.6,25,000/-, a reasonable time can be granted to the Applicants to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. 6. Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned order dated 29th January 2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.16/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.7/2008 is modified and as a condition for suspension of substantive sentence, the Applicants will have to deposit a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- instead of a sum of Rs.25 lacs. (2) A sum of Rs.6,25,000/- has already been deposited by the Applicants. Time of 12 weeks is granted to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with the Trial Court. : 5 : (3) Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. ( A.S.Oka,J.) A.S.Oka,J.) A.S.Oka,J.)