Appellate courts must exercise discretion in imposing conditions for suspension of sentence, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, especially regarding a defendant's financial ability.

ORDER :

P.Vadamalai, J.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order, in condition No.(i) passed in Crl.M.P.No.4233 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.139 of 2024, dated 13.11.2024 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2.The brief facts of the case:

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.178 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, which was filed by the respondent U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon the dishonour of cheque for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only) issued by the revision petitioner. 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 6 months and also directed the petitioner to pay twice the amount of the cheque i.e., Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs only) to the complainant towards compensation, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months, by his judgment, dated 18.10.2024. Challenging the above conviction judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.139 of 2024 before the Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar. Along with the appeal, the revision petitioner has also filed the petition in Cr.M.P.No.4233 of 2024 to suspend the sentence, in which, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur passed the order suspending the sentence subject to conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner has to deposit 20% of compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the condition of 20% of deposit, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision case.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records in this Criminal Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that as per provision of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 20% of the cheque amount has to be imposed as condition, but the Appellate Court has directed to deposit 20% of compensation amount, which is double the cheque amount awarded by the trial court. The petitioner is a retired municipality employee and he is a senior citizen and he is not able to mobilize such huge amount. The learned Judge failed to consider these facts while imposing the condition directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of compensation amount. The imposing of condition to deposit 20% amount is not mandatory. Therefore, the condition may be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.) DCC 104 (SC) (Jamboo Bhandari /v/ M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors).

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 20% of fine or compensation amount has to be ordered to be deposited, so, it is not cheque amount.

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. While so, the appellate court imposed condition directing the revision petitioner to deposit 20% of compensation amount while suspending sentence awarded by the trial Court.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.) DCC 104 (SC) (Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., & Ors.) has directed the Courts to consider the facts of each case before imposing 20% deposit. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

''6. What is he