1 cri.appln.263 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 263 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2010 M/s. Sysman Computers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ... Applicants Versus Industrial Development Bank of India and anr. Respondents Mr. Ashwin Thool, i/by Mr. Kiran Mehta for the applicants. Mr. Niranjan Mundergi with Mr. R. Laxman i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : MARCH 04, 2011 P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 1. This petition arises out of the order dated 26th November, 2009 passed by the Sessions Court directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. in the court as a condition precedent for suspension of the sentence. The petitioner has so far deposited the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 2 cri.appln.263 of 2010 condition of deposit of Rs. 25 lacs. is too harsh and the petitioner is just not in a position to deposit that amount. It is submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from financial crunch in the last several years. The application is opposed by the respondent no.1 contending that the petitioner in fact owes a sum of Rs. 2 Crores to respondent no. 1. Later there was one time settlement arrived at between the parties under which the petitioner agreed to pay sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to respondent no. 1 in discharge of the debt. He had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to respondent no. 1 which cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured. The trial court convicted the petitioner of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- to respondent no. 1. 3. The petitioner has, so far, filed six applications for modification of the order dated 26th November, 2010, two of the applications were for reduction of the amount of deposit as well 3 cri.appln.263 of 2010 as for extension of time and the remaining four applications only for extension of time. 4. Mr. Thool, the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dilip Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2007 (1) BCR (Cri) Page 769 to submit that the amount directed to be deposited as a condition precedent for suspension of the sentence should be reasonable and that the test of reasonableness would differ from case to case. There can be no dispute about the proposition that the amount directed to be deposited by way of condition precedent for suspension of sentence, must be reasonable taking into consideration the facts of the case. Then in such cases, it becomes imperative for the applicant to set out the facts relating to his financial difficulties which would enable the court to ascertain the quantum of the amount that can be said to be reasonable in his case. In the instant case, the petitioner baldly states in the application that there is financial crunch. He has however, not stated any particulars thereof. 4 cri.appln.263 of 2010 5. Mr. Mundergi, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits in fairness that the amount of deposit may be reduced to 10% of the total amount of compensation awarded which comes to Rs.18,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner also concedes that ordinarily direction for deposit of 10% of the compensation would be a reasonable order. However, he requests for making exception in the present case submitting that it is just not possible for the petitioner to deposit even 10% of the amount Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, deposit of Rs. 15 lacs. would be a reasonable condition. Hence, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26th November, 2009 passed by Sessions Court is modified to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs. in the Sessions Court within a period of eight weeks from today. [Judge]