CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Vs. V V S MANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the private complaints filed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondents are the original complainant in all the three complaints. The three complaints filed by the respondents were taken on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, chennai as C. C. Nos.1005, 1006 and 3805 of 2004 respectively. After trial the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai by his Judgment dated 22.01.2007 in C. C. Nos.1005, 1006 and 3805 of 2004 has convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of the cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and rs.3,00,000/- respectively and each petitioner was directed to pay Rs.75,000/-, 25,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively to the complainant within three months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The accused / petitioners preferred criminal appeals in c. A. Nos.44, 45 and 46 of 2007 respectively before the II Additional sessions Judge, Chennai and their appeals were admitted. The petitioners filed petitions to suspend the sentences imposed on them. Separate orders dated 21.02.2007 passed in crl. M. P. Nos.1690, 1691 and 1692 of 2007 read as follows: a)In Crl. M. P. No.1690 of 2007: Para 4. On either of furnishing cash each deposit or bank guarantee or immovable property security for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) each payable Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) being the compensation amount u/s 357 (3) of Cr. P. C. the substantial sentence alone suspended till the disposal of appeal on each executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai and appear before this Court on 21.03.2007 and to appear on subsequent hearing dates. b)In Crl. M. P. No.1691 of 2007: Para 4. On either of furnishing cash each deposit or bank guarantee or immovable property security for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each payable Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) being the compensation amount u/s 357 (3) of Cr. P. C. the substantial sentence alone suspended till the disposal of appeal on each executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai and appear before this Court on 21.03.2007 and to appear on subsequent hearing dates. c) In Crl. M. P. No.1692 of 2007: Para 4. On either of furnishing cash each deposit or bank guarantee or immovable property security for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) each payable Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) being the compensation amount u/s 357 (3) of Cr. P. C. the substantial sentence alone suspended till the disposal of appeal on each executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai and appear before this Court on 21.03.2007 and to appear on subsequent hearing dates. In the above revisions, the petitioners are challenging the correctness of that part of the said orders which directs each of the petitioners to deposit or furnish bank guarantee or immovable property security for Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- and rs.3,00,000/- and each payable Rs.75,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and rs.75,000/- respectively being the compensation amount.

(3.) Mr. L. Rajasekar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that under Sec.389 of the Code of criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have imposed condition while suspending the substantive sentence by directing the petitioners to deposit the amount or furnish security as aforesaid. The learned counsel further submitted that Sec.389 of the Code does not give jurisdiction to the appellate court to impose such a condition.