AMARVEER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS agreed by the parties, the matter is being finally heard.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was decided, imposing a condition of depositing 50% of fine in the trial court. Further, it was ordered that the accused petitioner shall execute a bond of Rs. 20,000/- and one surety of the like amount, for his appearance before the Appellate Court. THE said order was to be complied within 15 days. THEreupon, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) ON having considered the submissions made by the counsels for the rival parties and the facts and circumstances as well as the order impugned passed by the learned Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that this miscellaneous petition has merits for the reasons more than one. It is to be noted that a bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court on 15.07.2009 goes to show that it had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him for two years' S.I. Further, it was ordered that the accused petitioner shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 15 lacs as compensation. The order impugned passed by the learned Appellate Court is a glaring example of non-application of judicious mind and having been passed in haste, so much so that the learned Appellate Court has ordered that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the amount of fine before the learned trial court. It had also been ordered that for the appearance of the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court he shall execute bonds of Rs. 20,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and on doing so, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was ordered to be suspended till the decision of the appeal. It is apparent from the order impugned that it is ex-facie illegal because the learned trial court vide his judgment dated 15.07.2009 had never sentenced the petitioner by way of fine.