SURESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition against the order dated 4.10.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2012 whereby the learned appellate Court while suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the cheque amount within 15 days in the trial Court.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on the complaint made by the respondent-complainant after trial the accused-petitioner was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 345/2005 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2012. It was further ordered by the trial Court that in case the amount of fine is deposited by the petitioner, Rs. 70,000/- shall be paid to the respondent as compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed aforesaid appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. and the same was admitted by the appellate Court vide order dated 4.10.2012. Alongwith the appeal application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence was also filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed by the appellate Court with the condition that the petitioner submits two surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each and personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court. At the same time, a further condition was also imposed that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the cheque amount within a period of 15 days in the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved with the condition of deposit of 50% of the cheque amount, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this criminal revision petition.

(3.) Assailing the imposition of impugned condition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that every accused has statutory and fundamental right to file appeal against a judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and to seek suspension of sentence awarded by the trial Court and the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to impose any condition while suspending the sentence but in the present case, the learned appellate Court without considering the well settled legal position has illegally imposed the aforesaid condition which infact tantamounts to refusal of suspension of the sentence. It was further submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner is not such that he can fulfill the condition imposed by the trial Court and that will deprive the petitioner to be released on bail during pendeny of the appeal despite the fact that the appellate Court after finding substance in the appeal has admitted the same.