The main legal point established in the judgment is the appellate court's authority to impose terms while suspending the sentence and the determination of a reasonable amount for the petitioner/convict to deposit.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant petition is directed against the orders pronounced, on, 5.9.2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Solan, H.P. camp at Nalagarh, whereby he, while proceeding to suspend the execution of sentence(s) of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner/convict, ordered him, to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, besides directed him to furnish personal and surety bond(s) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each. Meeting compliance(s) therewith by the petitioner/convict, was, imperative for the orders recorded by the learned appellate Court, whereby, it temporarily suspended the execution of sentence(s) of imprisonment imposed upon him, by the learned trial Magistrate, hence taking absolute binding effect, during, the pendency of the criminal appeal bearing No. 18 of 2017, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. However, the petitioner has not meted compliance therewith, rather he has proceeded to assail the aforesaid directions, pronounced upon him, by his motioning this Court through the instant petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/convict has drawn the attention of this Court, to a verdict pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in 2007(6) SCC 528, titled as Dalip S. Dahanukar versus Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another, paragraph 72, whereof is extracted hereinafter:

“72 We, therefore, are of the opinion:

(i) in a case of this nature, sub-Section (2) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted even when the appellant was directed to pay compensation;

(ii) the appellate Court, however, while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellate on terms. However, no such term could be put as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal which is a constitutional and statutory right;

(iii) the amount of compensation must be a reasonable sum;

(iv) the Court, while fixing such amount, must have regard to all relevant factors including the one referred to in sub-Section (5) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(v) no unreasonable amount of compensation can be directed to be paid.”

wherein it is mandated that even though, no condition can be imposed upon the petitioner/convict, by the learned appellate Court, to, compulsorily make deposit of the compensation amount imposed upon him, by the convicting Court nor it being an imperative condition precedent, for, entertaining an appeal, yet, it is also mentioned therein, that fixing of compensation amount must be, in a reasonable sum.

3. A thorough incisive reading of the judgment supra, rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, pertinently the trite orders assailed before it, orders whereof stand extracted hereinafter:

“Accused 1, company, M/s Good value Marketing Co. Ltd. stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Accused 1 company is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, Accused 2 Mr.Dilip Dahanukar, the Chairman of Accused 1 and representative at the trial, shall suffer SI for 1 month.

Accused 2 Mr. Dilip Dahanukar, stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Accused 2 is sentenced to suffer SI for 1 month.

Accused 2 is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant, quantified at Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only), under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. Accused 2 is entitled to pay the amount of compensation in two equal monthly installments of Rs. 7,50,000 each. The first installment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 23.3.2006 and the second installment of Rs. 7,50,000 shall be paid on or before 24.4.2006; in default of payment of the amount of compensation Accused 2 shall suffer further SI for 2 months.”

Unveil (i) that the aggrieved accused No. 2 therein, was, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment extending upto 1 month, for his committing an offence punishable under