( 1 ) BY this order, two revision petitions filed by the petitioners are being disposed of together, impugned order being common in both the revision petitions.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in this case stand convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. The metropolitan Magistrate while recording conviction, sentenced the petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- besides directing them to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- respectively in each case, as provided under Section 138 where magistrate has been empowered to impose fine which may extend twice the amount of the cheque. The conviction and sentence part was assailed by the petitioners by way of preferring appeal before Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners also made application under Section 389 Cr. P. C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail till the disposal of the appeal. The learned Additional sessions Judge while dealing with that application ordered for their release with the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the cheque amount in the court and simultaneously ordered that the amount so deposited by them shall not be disbursed to the respondents till final decision. The order passed by the Additional Sessions judge is being challenged in this court only to the extent of the order of deposit of the cheque amount.

( 3 ) IT is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that this part of the order is contrary to law as the learned Additional Sessions Judge in fact acted as a civil court for effecting recovery of the cheque amount and thus made it impossible for the petitioners to seek their release because of the stringent condition which even otherwise, according to learned counsel for the petitioner could not have been imposed while making an order for grant of bail. To support such contention, he placed reliance on an authority reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 714 where too, a question had arisen if such onerous condition could be imposed at the time of dealing with the bail application. I have looked into that authority. Facts of that case are completely different from the one in hand. In that case during the course of investigation, the accused was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a condition for bail whereas in the present case, the petitioners have since been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act which provision otherwise provides and empowers the Magistrate to impose fine which may extend twice the amount of the cheque. The Magistrate while recording conviction and awarding sentence had slapped that fine on the petitioners. The additional Sessions Judge before whom appeal was assigned had only ordered for deposit of the cheque amount and not double the amount of the cheque.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent while justifying the order of the Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme court reported in AIR (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 416 where exactly similar question as mooted here in this case had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. There too petitioners were found guilty under the provision of Section 138 of the negotiable INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 and had applied for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The high court while entertaining his revision ordered suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time. Petitioner being dissatisfied with that order approached the supreme Court. Their Lordships Hon ble Mr. Justice K. T. Thomas and Hon ble mr. Justice R. P. Sethi while dealing with that aspect of the matter observed as under:-

WE feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under section 138 of the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount