( 1 ) THE petitioners; who are appellants in Cri. A. No. 358 of 2002 on the file of the Appellate Court, 'have challenged the impugned order dated 10-7-2002, by which the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against them is suspended on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the total fine amount before the Court below (Trial Court) within the period of one month from that date and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of rs. 1 lakh with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, who were accused in C. C. No. 30459 of 2000 on the file of the 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore City and who are appellants before the Appellate Court, in view of the provision contained in Section 357 (2) of the Cr. P. C. , the appellate Court was not right in asking them to deposit 20% of the total fine amount, and relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra pradesh in the case of V. Prasada Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh and another.

( 3 ) PERUSED the record carefully.

( 4 ) IN the case on hand, the petitioners were convicted by the Trial court sentencing to pay a fine of Rs. 17 lakhs and, in default of payment of that fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. However, when challenged by them, the Appellate Court ordered to suspend the same on condition that they shall deposit 20% of the fine amount.

( 5 ) THUS, the Appellate Court has ordered suspension of sentence on condition and not without any condition. In other words, if 20% of fine amount is not deposited, the order of suspension of sentence does not come into operation. No provision of law or authority has been brought to my notice that the Appellate Court has no power or cannot impose any condition while ordering suspension of sentence.

( 6 ) OF course, the learned Counsels for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision referred to above, vehemently contended that Section 357 (2) requires to be read with Section 389 of the Cr. P. C. , since a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent and consequently, the order of suspension of the sentence passed by the Appellate Court automatically stays the payment of fine amount also and as such, imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount while suspending the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is not proper.

( 7 ) FOR this, it may be noted that the Appellate Court has not ordered for payment of fine or compensation or any part of fine or compensation to the respondent. It has simply suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioners on deposit of 20% of the fine amount.

( 8 ) WHAT Section 357 (2) of the Cr. P. C. says is as under:"if the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal". Nowhere it says that the Court of Appeal, while suspending sentence imposed on an accused, cannot impose a condition of depositing a part of fine amount. It is true that as per the decision relied on for the petitioners, stay engrafted under the said provision of law equally applies to the compensation granted under sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code, but it cannot be taken to hold or read that the Appellate Court cannot pass a conditional order for suspending a sentence.

( 9 ) ACCORDING to me, the word "payment" found in Section 357 (2) of the cr. P. C. , does not refer to the 'deposit' of compensation or fine amount by an accused in pursuance of an order passed by Appellate Court while suspending sentence imposed on an accused since, to my mind, the word "payment" refers to payment to be made to the person, who is ordered to be paid compensation and not the fine amount, inclusive of compensation amount to be 'deposited' by accused. The stay engrafted into the said provision of law is with reference to the "p