The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of a condition to deposit a fine amount before the final decision of the appeal is not justified, as per the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the legal interpretation of fine as a sentence.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Kedar Nath (accused), who presently is confined in Central Jail, Ambala, has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 8.4.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby on an application for suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner along with the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a condition was imposed i.e., to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the trial Court at the tune of furnishing his bail bonds.

2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court.

3. In this case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dishonour of several cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- vide judgment of conviction dated 27.3.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. Subsequently, on the next day, i.e., 28.3.2006, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3 lacs for the commission of offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Act. It was also ordered that out of the fine of Rs. 3 lacs, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- be given to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine, except compensation part, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The same was admitted and notice in the application for suspension of sentence was issued. It was argued that the petitioner has not deposited the amount of fine of Rs. 3 lacs as imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence imposed upon him cannot be suspended. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Appellate Court ordered the suspension of sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner will deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the trial Court at the time of furnishing of his bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

5. The petitioner has challenged the imposing of the aforesaid condition in this criminal revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fine as imposed under Indian Penal Code has to be treated as sentence as provided Under Section 53 I.P.C. and has ordinarily to be recovered within six years of its imposition as provided Under Section 70 I.P.C. While referring to Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that if the fine is imposed in a case by the trial court which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. He submits that in the instant case the fine of Rs. 3 lacs was imposed by the Court and the condition imposed by the Appellate court, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, to deposit the fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- amounts to directing the petitioner to pay the amount of fine, which the petitioner is not liable to pay till the final decision of the appeal filed by him. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Sabita Behl v. State of Haryana 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 659 in which this Court has observed that a fine imposed by the trial court cannot be recovered till the presentation of the appeal of if appeal is presented and is entertained, then the fine cannot be recovered before the adjudication of the appeal.

6. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that out of the fine of Rs. 3 lacs, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given to the complainan