JAGAT SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) This petition has been filed Under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 13.6.2001. passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2001. In the Court below the appeal was filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 2.6.2001 delivered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokran as the appellants were convicted under section 379 IPC and awarded simple imprisonment of one year along with a fine of Rs. 5,000 /- each. The six appellants filed appeal No. 31/2001 before the Court below along with an application to suspend the sentence pending disposal of the appeal. The learned Court below though suspend the substantive sentence by the impugned order but directing them to deposit the fine awarded by the trial Court. Hence this petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the sentence is to be suspended it is to be suspended not only with regard to substantive sentence but also with regard to fine also. If pending litigation the petitioners/appellants have to deposit the fine a great hardship may be caused to them. The learned counsel has relied upon two pronouncements of our own High Court in Budhram v. State, 1990(1) RCC 13 and Mool Chand v. State, 1992 RCC 289. On the contrary learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.;