K.C. Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 6.1.2005 convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 7 lacs, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in appeal before the court of Sessions. The appellate court vide its order dated 4.3.2005, without commenting on the merits of the appeal. ordered that sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of appeal provided he deposits a sum of Rs. 7 lacs with the trial court within a month and furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount with the stipulation that he shall appear before the appellate court on all dates of hearing.
(2.) In this petition the grievance of the petitioner is that he is required by the appellate court to remit a huge amount of rupees seven lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in Stanny Felix Pinto v. M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2001(1) Crimes 190 (SC)) , learned counsel submitted since amount of fine of Rs. seven lees as ordered to be remitted by the trial court as a condition to suspend the sentence is too excessive, a portion thereof may be ordered to be remitted as the petitioner wants the sentence to be suspended.
(3.) I have considered the above argument and have gone through the case law cited at the bar. In Stanny Felix Pinto (supra), the accused was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a fine of Rs. 20 lacs was imposed. The High Court while entertaining the revision petition of the accused granted suspension of sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. The High Court ordered to remit an amount of Rs. 4 lacs i.e. 20% of the fine imposed on the accused. Against this order, the accused had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court did not interference with the order passed by the High Court.;