IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1706 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.NO. 174/2011 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM S.T.NO.230/2009 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR, LEELA NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 031 2. KORAH C.PUNNEN, CHIRAKADAVIL, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM.PIN- 686 001 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1706 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is appellant in Crl.Appeal.No.174 of 2011 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was convicted by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam in S.T.No.230 of 2009 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There was a direction for payment of compensation of `.90,000/-. Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in Crl.Appeal.No.174 of 2011 and moved C.M.P.No.1683 of 2011 to suspend the sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by Annexure-1, order dated 27.05.2011 suspended sentence but directed petitioner to deposit `.25,000/- in the trial court, as a condition precedent for execution of the bond. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has serious contentions to be urged in the trial court and in the circumstance, direction for deposit is harsh. At any rate the amount directed to be deposited is excessive. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is not as if learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power to direct a portion of compensation awarded by the trial court to be deposited as condition for stay. I find no reason to Crl.M.C.No.1706 of 2011 -: 2 :- interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to direct deposit of a portion of the amount. Then the question is whether amount directed to be deposited is excessive? The cheque amount is `.90,000/-. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is facing financial difficulty. Having regard to that, I am inclined to think that amount be deposited could be modified to `.20,000/-. Petitioner could be granted some time to deposit the amount. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: Annexure-I, order dated 27.05.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam on Crl.M.P.No.1683 of 2011 in Crl.Appeal.No.174 of 2011 is modified to the extent that the amount to be deposited in the trial court is modified as `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only). Petitioner is granted a months' time from this day to deposit the said amount. It is directed that petitioner shall execute the bond as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge within two weeks from this day subject to his depositing the amount mentioned above within the time granted hereby. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-