S. RABINDRANATH TAGORE, S/O T.C. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY Vs. YOGAKSHEMA CHIT FUND (PVT.) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI M.S. GAJENDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein was convicted by XIII Additional C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No. 6224/09 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'N.I. Act') and he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 35,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, he tiled appeal before the Sessions Court, Bangalore City in Crl. A. No. 499/2010. In the said appeal, the Petitioner sought for suspension of sentence ordered by the trial Court. The Appellate Court by order dated 7.7.2010 while ordering suspension of sentence passed by the trial Court directed the Petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the fine amount before the trial Court and also to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - with one solvent surety for the like sum within 15 days from that day. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the direction of the trial Court directing him to furnish solvent surety for the like sum though he has no objection for complying with the other conditions imposed by the Appellate Court. According to the Petitioner, the direction for furnishing solvent surety is harsh and it was not required having regard to the nature of the offence for which he has been found guilty.

(2.) THE Appellate Court in exercise of its discretionary power while suspending the order of sentence has imposed certain conditions. These conditions are imposed only to see that the accused -Appellant promptly appears before the court and in the event of appeal being dismissed, undergoes sentence ordered by the trial Court. While imposing such conditions, the Court is also required to keep in mind the interest of the complainant. No doubt, the Petitioner had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, the Petitioner is admittedly a resident of Tumkur while the trial Court and the Appellate Court are in Bangalore City. It is under these circumstances, the Appellate Court appears to have thought it fit to direct the Petitioner to furnish a solvent surety also in addition to the personal bond. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, I find no error committed by the trial Court in imposing such condition nor the said condition can be termed as harsh or as unwarranted. In view of this, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Hence the petition is rejected