1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574 OF 2011 Mr. Watapalli Tulasingh Balaji ...Petitioner. v/s. The State and Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Jatin P. Shah, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 11, 2011. P.C. 1 In view of the limited relief sought by the petitioner, who is original accused and appellant in criminal appeal no.163 of 2010, notice to the respondent no.2 does not appear to be necessary. 2 Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 138 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,344/ and in default, to undergo S.I. for three months. He preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. He also deposited an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as per the order of the appellate Court. Pending the appeal, he was granted bail and was directed to be released on his PR of Rs.10,000/- with surety in the like amount. According to him, he is 73 years old and his son is living abroad. It is not possible for him to find any surety and, therefore, he 2 may be permitted to furnish cash security. In the given circumstances, I find no reason to refuse the prayer. 3 Therefore, order passed by the Sessions Court stands modified to the extent that in lieu of surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, he shall be at liberty to furnish cash security in the same amount. 4 Petition stands disposed off accordingly. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 3 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2011 Mr. Watapalli Tulasingh Balaji ...Petitioner. v/s. The State and Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Jatin P. Shah, adv. For the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 11, 2011. P.C. 1 In view of the limited relief sought by the petitioner, who is original accused and appellant in criminal appeal no.164 of 2010, notice to the respondent no.2 does not appear to be necessary. 2 Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 138 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.17,38,906/ and in default, to undergo S.I., for 45 days. He preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. He also deposited an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. As per the order of the appellate Court pending the appeal, he was granted bail and was directed to be released on his PR of Rs.10,000/- with surety in the like amount. According to him, he is 73 years old and his son is living abroad. It is not possible for him to find any surety and, therefore, he 4 may be permitted to furnish cash security. In the given circumstances. I find no reason to refuse the prayer. 3 Therefore, order passed by the Sessions Court stands modified to the extent that in lieu of surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, he shall be at liberty to furnish cash security in the same amount. 4 Petition stands disposed off accordingly. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)