HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.P.No.8731 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the order of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, passed in Crl.M.P.No.288 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.141 of 2010 dated 09.08.2010. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kurnool, in C.C.No.284 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 09.07.2010, found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs, within a period of one month from the date of said order, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred Crl.A.No.141 of 2010 before the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner-accused preferred Crl.M.P.No.238 of 2010 seeking to suspend the sentence and conviction imposed against him by the trial Court, till disposal of the Criminal Appeal. However, the said petition was dismissed by the appellate Court by an order dated 09.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred this criminal petition. Heard both sides. The impugned order passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, reads as under: “Heard both sides. The amount involved is Rs.10 lakhs and lower Court found the accused guilty and convicted. Obviously, the amount is in the hands of the accused/convict and to delay payment, the appeal appears to have been filed. Hence, this petition is dismissed. If the appellant really has genuine grounds he can advance his arguments in appeal itself early”. In my considered view, the aforesaid order of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is not correct. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner- accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Six months. If the petitioner-accused does not pay the compensation amount of Rs.10 Lakhs, he has to undergo a further sentence of Six months, which works out to one year in toto. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court should not have insisted upon payment of compensation amount of Rs.10 Lakhs. When once an appeal is admitted, it is for the Courts either to suspend the sentence or to dismiss the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The Execution of sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the trial Court in C.C.No.284 of 2007 is suspended pending Crl.A.No.141 of 2010 and the petitioner-accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 04-10-2010 Gsn.