ORDER :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the conditional order passed in Crl.M.P.No.6225 of 2024 in C.A.No.207 of 2024, dated 13.11.2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent as complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 r/w 124 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trial, has passed judgment in S.T.C.No.113 of 2021, dated 04.06.2024 finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.90,75,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., within two months, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.207 of 2024 and moved an application in Crl.M.P. No.6225 of 2024, seeking suspension of sentence.

3.The learned Principal Sessions Judge has passed an order, dated 13.11.2024, suspending the sentence, imposing a condition, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the trial Court within a month. Challenging the impugned condition, the present revision came to be filed.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate while convicting the petitioner, suspended the sentence till the disposal of the appeal; that the learned Principal Sessions Judge ought to have considered that whether the circumstances of the case warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount and such failure to consider has caused serious injustice to the petitioner; that the learned Principal Sessions Judge has failed to consider the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development reported in 2023 (10) SCC 446, that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust as the same will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal ; that the learned Principal Sessions Judge has failed to take note of the provisions of Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the time period stipulated to deposit the conditional amount is 60 days from the date of receipt of order, but the learned Principal Sessions Judge has granted only a month time and that since the condition imposed is onerous, the petitioner is constrained to file the present revision seeking modification.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the learned appellate Judge, by considering the records available on record and also on perusing the judgment of the trial Court, has rightly imposed the impugned condition, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount; that the learned Principal Sessions Judge has only directed to deposit the minimum amount as contemplated under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act; that though the impugned order came to be passed on 13.11.2024, the petitioner without complying with the same has filed the present revision and is protracting the proceedings.

6. Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development reported in 2023 (10) SCC 446, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that the appellate Court normally will be justified in imposing condition to deposit as provided under Section 148 of NI Act. But at the same time, where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exemption can be made for the reasons specifically recorded and the re