PAWAN Vs. TARACHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in SCC No. 38 of 2013 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli (in short "JMFC") vide judgment and order dated 3rd March 2015. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Hingoli. The learned Appellate Court has suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner by JMFC upon a condition that he shall deposit Rs. 2.00 Lakhs within two weeks. The petitioner herein seeks modification of the said order dated 1st April, 2015.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner has a good case on merits in appeal. That, the complainant has not been able to establish that the petitioner was liable to pay legally dis-chargeable debt. It is further submitted that, at present, the economic condition of the petitioner is not fair enough to enable him to deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. It is further submitted that, the appellant would lose the statutory right of the appeal being heard on merits only because of his inability to deposit an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs as a condition precedent. The disputed cheque was of an amount Rs. 4.00 Lakhs. Petitioner has fairly shown his willingness to deposit 1/4th amount of the disputed cheque as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed implicit reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr, 2007 ALLMR(Cri) 1775 (S.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum and that the Court while fixing such amount must have regard to all relevant factors including the one referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned JMFC had directed the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs towards compensation. The appellate Court has directed the appellant to deposit half of the compensation amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, it is beyond the reach of the petitioner to deposit half of the amount of compensation and, therefore, seeks leniency.