JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - Common question of law and facts are involved in the present batch of petitions, as such the same are being taken up together.

2. In CRM-M-5956-2022, the prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner and bail/ surety bonds were cancelled on account of non-payment of 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court.

3. In other four cases, common prayer made is for setting aside the order of the appellate Court vide which while allowing the application for suspension of sentence, a condition has been imposed upon the petitioner(s) to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court.

4. Learned counsel submit that a condition for the grant of bail cannot be made onerous for the accused- appellant (petitioner herein). Still further, the non-deposit of compensation cannot be a ground for cancellation/vacation of the order granting suspension of sentence The petitioners are not in a position to pay the amount as directed on account of being in poor financial condition, the appeal is continuation of trial, the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court can be recovered under Section 421 Cr.PC. Appeal should be heard on its merit without insisting on the deposit of the amount as directed by the Court as fine is not recoverable as per Section 357(2) Cr.PC once the appeal against the order of conviction preferred is pending.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Vivek Sahni and another vs. Kotak Mahindra 2009(4) RCR (Crl.) 614, Ajay Vinodchandra Shah and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2019 ACD 399 and Dilip S.Dahanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 528.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant in CRM-M-5956-2022 states that the Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order in terms of the provisions of law and thus, the he prays for the dismissal of the petition.

Heard.

7. The core question that emanates in these petitions is "Whether on account of non-payment of the amount as directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, suspension of sentence granted to the appellant can be automatically or consequentially cancelled?"

8. Before delving upon the merits of the case, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant statutory provision involved.

9. Section 148 of the Act reads thus:

'148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that the amount payable under this subsection shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.

(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. (3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:

Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.'

(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellan