MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question involved in these cases is with regard to the power conferred under S.389 Cr.P.C. on an appellate court to impose condition at the time of suspension of execution of sentence and granting bail. Hence all these cases are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) All the petitioners who are accused faced trial for offences punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the Act. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods. Some of the petitioners were sentenced to pay fine upto Rs.2,00,000/- and some were ordered to pay compensation to the complainants in tune with the cheque amounts for which the complaints were filed. Against the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court, the petitioners filed appeals before the appellate courts along with petition for suspending execution of the sentence ordered by the trial court. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the appeals were admitted by the appellate courts, the conditions imposed by the appellate court in suspending the execution of the sentence are harsh and not in accordance with the power conferred on the appellate court under S. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the fine now, imposed by the appellate court is harsh and beyond the power of the appellate court conferred under S.389(1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submits that condition to remit half of the cheque amount or part thereof for execution of suspension of the sentence is not in accordance with the Code and it would shut out the right of the petitioners to proceed with appeals. It is the case of the petitioners that the appeals are statutory appeals and the petitioners are entitled to take their defence in challenging the findings entered by the trial courts.