DILIP S DAHANUKAR Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is heard forthwith.

(2.) These three petitions have given rise to a short yet important question that whether the appeal court on presentation of an appeal against the order of conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act") has power to direct payment of compensation, awarded by the learned Magistrate, in whole or any part thereof, as a condition for suspending substantive sentence.

(3.) In all the three petitions, the orders impugned are similar. In the first two writ petitions, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner-accused to pay five lacs rupees within four weeks as a condition precedent for suspending the substantive sentence of SI for one month and compensation quantified as Rs.fifteen lacs under section 357(3) of the Criminal procedure Code (for short, "the Code"). In the third petition an amount of Rs.three lacs has been directed to be paid for suspending the sentence of imprisonment and payment of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate. In the appeals filed by the petitioner in the first two writ petitions, besides the other prayers, he had prayed for modification of the order of deposit of the compensation imposed by the trial Court to enable the petitioner to pay the said amount and for reduction of the amount of compensation. In the third petition since only the impugned order dated 18.4.2006 is annexed, it is not clear as to what was the prayer in the memo of appeal insofar as the amount of compensation is concerned.