IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2010 K.C.Gupta, S/O Laxmi Chand R/O M/S Care & Company through Proprietor Pat Saray Ganj, in front of Ravi General Store, Muradabaad, U.P ………. Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2. M/S Sethi Plaster Industries through Proprietor, Krishan Kumar Sethi, S/O Late Ram Lal Sethi R/O Manni Ram Road, Rishikesh District Dehradun …………..Respondents Smt Prabha Naithani, Advocate present for the revisionist Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against the order dated 30.04.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010, whereby said court has imposed a condition directing the revisionist to deposit Rs. 30,000/-in the court, on which the operation of the order passed by the trial court, shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal. 2 (3) Brief facts of the case are that a Criminal Complaint Case No. 1221 of 2001(old no. 1999 of 2009) was filed by respondent no.2 M/S Sethi Plaster Industries against the revisionist K.C.Gupta vs. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and one punishable under section 420/406 I.P.C. The trial court (Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh) after recording evidence and hearing the parties vide order dated 17.04.2010 convicted revisionist K.C.Gupta under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court sentenced the convict for six months imprisonment and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 65,000/- including the amount of compensation. Aggrieved by said order the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010 before Sessions Judge, Dehradun. After admitting the appeal learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the convict. As to the stay of the realization of fine, learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 30.04.2010, directed the appellant (present revisionist) to deposit 30,000/- as a condition precedent for stay of the operation of the order challenged. (4) Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the impugned order, this court 3 does not find any illegality committed by the appellate court. (5) Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily with the observation that the amount directed to be deposited as condition precedent for staying of the order passed by the trial court, shall not be paid to the complainant before the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.10.6.2010 N.P