Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Stanny Felix Pinto —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 26/2001)
Decided on 15-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocate.

Very important point
While suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Code of Criminal Proce­dure, 1973—Section 389—Conviction for dishonour of cheque—Suspension of sentence—High Court imposing condition of depositing part of fine within a specified time—Appeal there against—Plea that amount re­quired to be remitted is huge amount of Rs. 40,000—Condition neither unjust nor unconciliable—High Court’s order does not warrant inter­ference.

       While suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required by the High Court to remit a huge amount of rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial Court (twenty lacs of rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. (Para 2)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.