The appellate court must consider the specifics of each case when determining conditions for suspension of sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing flexibility in the deposit requirement.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 3469 of 2024 in Crl. A. No. 40 of 2022, dated 23.05.2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 102 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Tuticorin. The first respondent has filed the said case U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner on the basis of dishonour of cheques for Rs.72,48,000/-. After contest, the learned Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.72,48,000/- to the complainant towards compensation U/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. by his judgment, dated 28.02.2022. Challenging the above conviction judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No.40 of 2022 before the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin. During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner has filed the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 3469 of 2024 to suspend the sentence, dated 28.02.2022 in C.C. No. 102 of 2018. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, dismissed that petition on 23.05.2024. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision case.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the second respondent. Perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner was directed to pay 20% of compensation amount while suspending the sentence in Crl. M.P. No. 1731 of 2022 in Crl. A. No. 40 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. When the petitioner challenged that order before this Court in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 1140 of 2023, which was dismissed on the ground that the criminal revision was not maintainable. The petitioner is now in custody and filed another petition before the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin, for suspension of sentence, but it was negatived. The petitioner is not able to mobilize 20% of cheque amount of Rs.72,48,000/-. In a case filed under the provisions of N.I Act, when the accused is in custody, the petition for suspension of sentence has to be considered in a lenient manner, when the petitioner is ready to pay 10% of compensation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the following citations:

(i) State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Ors. vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, (2004) MLJ (Crl.) 1001

(ii) Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben, 2024 INSC 96

(iii) Order of this Court passed in a case Padmanabhan vs. Nagajothi dated 25.09.2007

(iv) Order of this Court passed in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 4284 of 2018 dated 28.03.2018

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to comply with the condition for depositing 20% of the compensation amount even after dismissal of the criminal revision by this Court. It is contended that the revision against the condition imposed in suspension of sentence or bail is not maintainable, which is held by this Court in Crl. R.C. No. 766 of 2019, dated 21.06.2022.

6. The case is relating to dishonor of cheque filed under the provisions of N.I. Act. The accused preferred the criminal appeal against the conviction and compensation awarded by the trial Court. Whileso, the Appellate Court imposed the condition directing the revision petitioner to deposit 20% of compensation amount while suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed the criminal revision challenging 20% of deposit and the same was dismissed by this Court as it was not maintainable.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in t