SURESH HIRALAL BARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule against the respondent No.1. It is not necessary to issue rule against the respondent no.2. By consent of the learned APP rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, decided finally.

(2.) The petitioner came to be convicted of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to suffer R.I. one one year and also to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rs. four lacs) to the respondent no.2. Against his conviction and sentence the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and also ordered that substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner to be suspended on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the compensation within a period of two months from the date of the said order which was passed on 23.7.2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition requiring him to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation and has therefore approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insistence of the learned Additional Sessions Judge5, Aurangabad to require the petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation is totally unjustified and contrary to various pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India.