K. Thankappan, J.

Common question involved in these cases is with regard to the power conferred under S.389 Cr.P.C. on an appellate court to impose condition at the time of suspension of execution of sentence and granting bail. Hence all these cases are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2. All the petitioners who are accused faced trial for offences punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. They were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods. Some of the petitioners were sentenced to pay fine upto Rs.2,00,000/- and some were ordered to pay compensation to the complainants in tune with the cheque amounts for which the complaints were filed. Against the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court, the petitioners filed appeals before the appellate courts along with petition for suspending execution of the sentence ordered by the trial court. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the appeals were admitted by the appellate courts, the conditions imposed by the appellate court in suspending the execution of the sentence are harsh and not in accordance with the power conferred on the appellate court under S. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the fine now, imposed by the appellate court is harsh and beyond the power of the appellate court conferred under S.389(1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submits that condition to remit half of the cheque amount or part thereof for execution of suspension of the sentence is not in accordance with the Code and it would shut out the right of the petitioners to proceed with appeals. It is the case of the petitioners that the appeals are statutory appeals and the petitioners are entitled to take their defence in challenging the findings entered by the trial courts.

4. While considering the questions raised by the petitioners, it is advantageous to quote the appellate power conferred under S.389 of the Code which reads as follows:-­

“389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.

(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto.

(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall,-­

i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or

ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under, sub-s.(1), and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.

(4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced.

A reading of the above provision would show that the appellate court is empowered to order suspension of the execution of the sentence appealed against and if the accused be in confinement to release him on bailor on his own bond. Suspension of execution of sentence is within the realm of discretion of the appellate court. Reasons me to be recorded by the appellate court in writing while ordering suspension of execution of the sentence and releasing the accused on bail. The appella