Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. The petitioner accused has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 12-9-2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon whereby on an application filed under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) the Court has directed to deposit a fine, 25% of the compensation amount, as a condition for a suspension of the conviction order.
2. The respondent-original complainant has filed a complaint in C. C. No. 914 of 2004 before the J.M.F.C. Yawal, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) based on two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each. The cheques were returned back and therefore, proceedings have been initiated under the N.I. Act. On 29-7-2005 after hearing both the parties, the accused has been held guilty and convicted for the six months S. I. and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. twice of the cheque amount. The accused therefore, preferred an Appeal No. 88 of 2005 before the Sessions Court at Jalgaon. By the impugned order, the learned First Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge on the application under Section 389 Criminal Procedure Code has passed following order:
Heard,
Read the contents of the application. Execution of order and sentences shall suspended on of depositing fine amount, 25% of compensation amount and on furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 15,000/- paid before LLC.
The accused failed to fulfil those conditions within the prescribed time. Therefore, at present the accused is in jail.
3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner basically has relied on C. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Whereby after considering the Section 389(2) of Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, it has been observed that pending appeal, an order of imposing condition for suspension of the sentence is improper, I am not inclined to accept the view in C. Nageshwara Rao (supra) by the A. P. High Court. That was a case where the imprisonment was of two months. The Court was of the view that the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated in case the order of suspension, if not granted unconditionally.
4. In answer to this, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on various judgments. The Bombay High Court recently in Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale v. Capt. Atul Wasudeo Divekar and Anr. : 2006(1)MhLj700 after considering the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act, directed to deposit half of the cheque amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- within 15 days. The Court after considering the similar contentions, like that of the petitioner held that imposing a condition to deposit 50% of amount is correct and permissible.
5. The Apex Court in Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2001)2 SCC 416 while considering Sections 389, 397 and 401 read with Section 138 of N.I. Act, has held that the High Court's order requiring the accused to remit Rs. 4,00,000/-, a part of fine amount, within a specified period as a condition to suspend the sentence, is just, conscionable, proper and advisable.
6. Taking into account the scheme of N.I. Act, it is very clear that N.I. Act makes a civil transaction to be an offence by legal fiction Dalmiya Cement v. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. : 2001CriLJ972 , the accused must fulfil his liability as early as possible. The complainant is definitely entitled to get his money back within reasonable time. The imposition of such condition of deposit, considering the scheme of the N.I. Act, cannot be said to be improper as contended by the petitioner's advocate. The power of the Appellate Court of imposing condition while suspending the sentence, and even granting conditional bail in such matter is within the frame work of law and the record.
7. Considering the scheme and purpose of the N.I. Act and in view of the judgment given by this Court in Maheshwar Kale (supra) and the decision of the Apex Court in Stanny Felix Pinto (supra), I am not inclined to interfere with the conditional order passed by the Courts below while suspending the execution and sentences, in appeal arising out of N.I. Act. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with no costs.