1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 381/2008 Date of Order : 02/04/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor for the State. None present for the respondent No.2 though served. BY THE COURT: No one appears for the respondent No.2 though served. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand (for short, “the Appellate Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No.59/2008 to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in 2 Criminal Case No.727/2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner- accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the judgment and order dated 28.2.2008 the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to the imprisonment of six months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Buildings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 416; and a decision of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (1) DCR 526. In Stanny Felix Pinto Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the accused therein was sentenced with the imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,00,000/-. While suspending the sentence of imprisonment and fine, the High Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/-. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the 3 convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the order of the High Court was held to be justified. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala (supra). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Appellate Court was not justified in directing the petitioner-accused to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In my view, the ends of justice would be met in modifying the condition of depositing the amount instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which comes nearly 1/4th of the amount of fine imposed. Consequently, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner-appellant by the trial Court will remain suspended, provided the petitioner submits the personal bond and the surety bond as directed by the Appellate Court and also deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the part of fine amount. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court are maintained. With these modification, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 670/2008 In S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 381/08 (Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : 02.04.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. None present for the respondent No.2 though served. Since the criminal misc. petition itself has been disposed of, the stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp