2906crn586.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2010 (Sau. Vishakha w/o Deepak Bhosale Vs. Vijay Pundalirao Mohare) ........................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V. G. Bhamburkar, Advocate for the applicant. ....... CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 29TH JUNE 2010 The applicant has filed the application challenging the order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 01/9/2009 so far as it relates to issuing of direction to the applicant to deposit amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards the part payment of compensation as a condition for grant of bail. The order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge was subject matter of review in an application presented to the same Court, which also came to be turned down in view of the order passed on 06/02/2010. The applicant was an accused in a trial initiated against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties in summary criminal case No. 20077 of 2006, has recorded findings of guilt of accused and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned trial Court has also directed the applicant to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5 lac to the non applicant. The order passed by the trial Court is subjected to challenge in an appeal pending before the Sessions Court being Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2009. The appellate Court 2906crn586.10.odt 2/2 directed suspension of sentence and released the accused on bail on condition of deposit of part amount of compensation, as stated above. The accused is also directed to furnish cash surety to the extent of Rs. 8,000/-. The Counsel appearing for the applicant contends that it is not open for the Sessions Court to impose condition in respect of deposit of amount of compensation while exercising powers under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is difficult to accept the above condition for the reasons that the appellate Court, while suspending the sentence has not passed any order imposing costs or compensation. However, it is permissible for the appellate Court while directing suspension of sentence to lay down some condition. The another aspect that has been agitated is touching to the merit or subject matter of controversy of the matter. The appeal is pending, and therefore, I do not propose to go into the merits of controversy. The order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge does not call for interference. The application is devoid of substance and hence stands rejected. JUDGE wwl