P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Accused-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to challenge the impugned order dated 19th of May, 2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court, while suspending the sentence awarded to him by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu (for short, 'learned trial Court') under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for shot, 'Act'), has directed to deposit 25% amount of compensation.
(2.) The facts, in brief giving rise to this petition, are that respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act before the learned trial Court and, on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted him and sentenced him for two years simple imprisonment and also directed him to pay Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by judgment of learned trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while suspending the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, has imposed an onerous condition whereby the petitioner is asked to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the learned appellate Court is dehors the law and, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case of Bhagwati Sahay Katriya v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 684]. In this verdict, this Court has taken note that, while suspending the sentence, learned appellate Court cannot impose any condition by exercising power under sub-section (1) of Section 389 Cr.P.C.;