H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 26-2-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 195/2007 to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the judgment and order-dated 29-10-2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 392/2007.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner- accused and the Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to the simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, 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. & Am., (2001) 3 SCC 416; and a decision of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (1) DCR 526.
(3.) IN Stanny Felix Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Am. (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 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.;