Important Point- The court has power to impose a fine of double the amount of the cheque and it cannot be termed as harsh because said power is statutorily conferred under section 138 of N.I. Act.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Mrudul Barot, Ld. Advocate and Mr. Manan Mehta & Mr. Raval, Ld. APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

2. All these revision applications are between the same parties and though arising out of different impugned orders in different appeals, practically in all the matters, similar law point is involved and, therefore, though the petitioner has to prefer four separate revision applications because of four separate impugned orders in four separate Criminal Appeals arising out of four separate Criminal Cases, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. Even parties have also submitted only one set of arguments in all such matters.

3. Therefore, four revision applications are decided by this common judgment. Hence Registry shall keep copy of this judgment in all the matters.

4. The petitioner in all the revision applications is facing an order of conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act [for short 'NI Act'] in all such revision applications, because the petitioner has issued four different cheques in favour of the respondent - complainant and, therefore, when all such cheques were bounced and remained unpaid by the petitioner's bank, the complainant has filed complaint under section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Such Court has by impugned order dated 29/3/2016, after full-fledged trial, convicted the present petitioner and awarded sentence of simple imprisonment [SI] for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI for two months.

5. The petitioner has challenged such conviction by filing respective appeals before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. With such appeals, the petitioner has also filed applications for bail.

6. However, while granting the bail by its order dated 26/4/2016, the City Sessions Court has imposed a condition that the petitioner should be released on bail till hearing and final disposal of such Criminal Appeal on depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- before the trial Court and on executing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with some regular conditions like marking presence before the Court on every date of hearing, not to leave local limits of Gujarat without prior permission of the Court, not to misuse his liberty, etc.

7. Being aggrieved by such conditional order of bail, the petitioner has challenged such order dated 26/4/2016 by filing present revision applications.

8. The sum and substance of arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioner is to the effect that filing of an appeal by the accused person is his constitutional and legal right and, therefore, when right to appeal is provided in the statute, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, such order of bail should not be conditional one as purported in the impugned judgment and same needs to be quashed and set aside.

9. In support of his such submission, learned advocate for the petitioner is mainly relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahendra Company Ltd. Reported in [2007] 6 SCC 528 and other judgments referred in such citation.

10. If we peruse such decision, it becomes clear that practically the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed so many judgments and other details mainly for interpretation of section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short 'the Code'] vis-a-vis the provisions of NI Act with reference to the power to impose fine, but with due respect to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be recollected here that the provisions of section 357 of the Code is mainly with reference to the powers of the Court to order to pay compensation and not with regard to imposition of fine. Generally the powers to impose fine for the offences under the Indian Penal Code [IPC] are conferred in the Penal Code its