mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2619 of 2009 Chaitanya Prabhu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur,Through its Chairman Shri Ganpati Shankar Patil & Anr. ... Petitioners versus Shri Arun Vishnu Vadgaonkar & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.S.S.Tembekar for petitioners Mr.P.B. Rananavare for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Gawade APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 21st November 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 24th August 2009 passed by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge conditionally suspending the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. 3. The petitioners have been convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No substantive sentence of Imprisonment was imposed but the Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and sentence of 7 days in default and further directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- to the complainant and in default imposed a sentence of two months. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal and prayed for an interim stay of the order of conviction and sentence. The Court while granting stay imposed a condition of payment of 50% of the compensation i.e a sum of Rs.2,07,500/- in the court as a condition for suspension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Judge erred in imposing a condition of deposit of 50% of the compensation. Under section 389 of the Cr.P.C while suspending the sentence the appellate court is empowered to impose conditions for suspension of sentence. The discretion exercised by the Sessions Court in directing deposit of 50% of the amount of compensation cannot be said to be arbitrary. It has given good reasons for exercise of discretion in the impugned order. In the absence of any arbitrariness, the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the decision of this court in Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs. Captain Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr, 2006 Cr.L.J. 606 in which this court has taken a view that while ordering suspension the court is entitled to impose a condition of deposit of the amount of compensation or part thereof. This decision supports the view taken by me. 7. Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)