1 WP : 3053/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3053 OF 2010 Shri Sanjay Kashinath Jaware .... Petitioner Vs. Prakash Appliances & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. J.D. Khairnar, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Prerana Silimkar i/by Mr. Gite Advocate for respondent Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st August, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition is filed by the accused in proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, who has been convicted of the offence and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence to the District Court being Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2010. In that appeal, he filed an application at Exhibit 4 for 2 WP : 3053/2010 suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The learned District Judge by his order dated 25th August 2010, allowed the application on condition that the applicant deposits the amount of compensation in two instalments with the first instalment to be paid on 1st September 2010 and the second instalment to be paid on 22nd November 2010. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the conditions imposed upon him, in the order for suspension of the sentence. 2. Mr. Khairnar, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court in M/s Gurukripa Traders vs. Kailas Ramnarayan & Anr., reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 1889 submits that the Sessions Court could not have imposed any such condition upon the petitioner. Reliance of the learned Advocate on the decision cited is absolutely misplaced. The judgment in fact refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited and another, reported in [2007]6 SCC 521, wherein the Apex court has held that the appellate court while suspending the sentence under Section 138 of the 3 WP : 3053/2010 Negotiable Instruments Act is entitled to put the appellant on terms. However, no such term could be put as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, which is a constitutional and statutory right. In the instant case, admittedly no conditions has been impsed for entertaining the appeal. The condition imposed is only for suspending the sentence. In that circumstance, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner. The petition is dismissed in limine. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the extension of time to deposit the amount. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount within a period of two weeks from today. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)