IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 244 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.290/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIOER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- KRISHNARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THIRUMOORTHI CHETTIAR, KUTHAMBULLITHERUVIL HOUSE, NEAR KALI MARIAMMAN KOVIL, KANIYARKODE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 244 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010. ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of of Rs.Two Lakhs, in default of which, he had to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the trial court judgment. The appellate court while considering the petition under Section 389(1) of Crl.P.C. directed the petitioner to execute a bond forRs.One Lakh with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wadakkancherry and also to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- before the court below within a period of three months. Crl.M.C.244/2010. 2 2. According to the petitioner, the court below should not have ordered him to deposit Rs.35,000/-, which according to him is an onerous condition. 3. There can be no dispute regarding the fact that the appellate court is empowered to impose conditions on the basis of the circumstance of each case. The court below has exercised its discretion. There is nothing to show that the discretion has been wrongly exercised by the appellate court, so as to warrant interference by this court. There is nothing to show that the condition imposed is so onerous, which almost amount to declining bail. Considering the various aspects, there is no merit in this petition. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time to deposit the amount as directed by the court below. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.