1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4088 OF 2007 M/s.Navshakti Combined & Anr. .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ... Mrs.Mallika Ingale for the applicant. Mr.U.V.Nikam APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 28th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 2nd November 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gr.Mumbai granting conditional stay for the sentence imposed on the applicant by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar vide order dated 8th October 2007 passed in Case 2 No.1172/S/2003. 3. The applicants were prosecuted by the respondent no.2 for an offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicants who were the builders and promoters had agreed to construct and sell a flat with the respondent no.2 and had received the consideration of Rs.9,61,000/- out of the total price of the flat of Rs.10,61,000/-. The applicants did not fulfil their contract. Exasperated respondent no.2 agreed to the request of the applicants to cancel the agreement by receiving cheque of Rs.15 lakhs from them. The misery of the applicant did not end as the cheque issued by the applicants bounced. He therefore filed a complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held the applicants were guilty of the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced applicant no.2 to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and directed each of the applicants to pay a find of Rs.7,60,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months more. Aggrieved applicants filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and applied for interim bail/suspension of sentence pending the decision of 3 the appeal. By an order dated 2nd November 2007, the learned Sessions Judge directed suspension of sentence imposed on the applicants on condition that they deposit 20% of the fine imposed in the court. That order is impugned in this revision application. 4. The applicants have been convicted. They have applied for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The learned Sessions Judge had discretion in suspending the sentence and/or granting of a bail subject to such conditions for suspension of the sentence as he thought fit. The learned Sessions Judge has been lenient in imposing a condition of depositing only 20% of the amount of fine as a condition for suspension of sentence and/or bail. In any event, the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 5. In the circumstances, application is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)