The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act to deposit a percentage of the compensation amount for suspension of sentence.

1. - These three applications of accused-petitioner Mahesh Bhateja have been filed along with criminal revisions filed by the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been convicted in three cases by the Trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court under Section 138, NI Act, 1881 as follows:-

(1) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 704 of 2012

The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No. 1765 of 2009, Smt. Kiran Patia v. Mahesh Bhateja , convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on 25.2.2012 under Section 138 NI Act by two years' S.I. with order to pay compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees two lacs ten thousands) to the complainant. The appeal No. 111 of 2012 of Mahesh Bhateja was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar on 15.5.2012 with slight modification in the sentence and the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138, NI Act by two years' S.I. alongwith fine of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees two lacs ten thousands) and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to two months' S.I. additionally. The amount of fine was ordered to be paid to complainant Smt. Kiran Patia.

(2) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 703 of 2012

The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No. 2551 of 2009, Jagdish Rai v. Mahesh Kumar , convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on 23.1.2013 under Section 138 NI Act by two years' S.I. with order to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousands) to the complainant. The appeal No. 33 of 2012 of Mahesh Bhateja was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar on 7.6.2012.

(3) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 705 of 2012

The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No. 1437 of 2010, Deepak Kumar v. Mahesh Bhateja , convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner on 1.11.2011 under Section 138 NI Act by one years' S.I. with order to pay compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One lac ten thousands) to the complainant. The appeal No. 85 of 2011 of Mahesh Bhateja was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar on 18.6.2012.

2. The petitioner seeks suspension of sentence under the provisions of Section 389, CrPC but Section 389, CrPC gives power of suspension of sentence to this Court only in relation to appeals pending before this Court. There is difference between appeal and revision. Only because that there is a revision pending in this Court, the sentence of petitioner cannot be suspended under Section 389, CrPC.

3. When this Court proposed that amount of fine or its part should be deposited by the revision petitioner for getting the order of suspenstion in his favour, the proposal was opposed by the petitioner and in support of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings :

(1) Amarveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2010 (1) Cr.LR 414 : 2010 (2) NIJ 154 (Raj) . In this case, it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if Appellate Court suspends the sentence passed under Section 138, NI Act on the condition to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation in the Trial Court, then it will not be permissible. While allowing the misc. petition, the order of the lower Court to the extent of imposition of condition of 50% of fine was quashed and set aside and the Registrar General was also directed to circulate a copy of that order to all the Appellate Courts in respect of offence under Section 138, NI Act in that case.

Here another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is much relevant. Dilip S. Dahaunkar v. Kotal Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 328 : 2007 (1) NIJ 413 (SC) . In this case, appeal was under the NI Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court thought it fit to ask petitioner to deposit rupees one lac towards the compensation under the NI Ac