Point of Law:
An order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case. Where the execution of the sentence is stayed, the conviction continues to operate. But where the conviction itself is stayed, the effect is that the conviction will not be operative from the date of stay. An order of stay, of course, does not render the conviction non-existent, but only non-operative.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Gyanedra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A assisted by Mr. Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the State as also perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State agree that the present application may be disposed of at this stage without issuing notice or calling for any further affidavits in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

3. This application 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 (Smt. Manju Tiwari Vs. State of and another), which has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur. Under the impugned judgment, the appellate court has issued recovery notice for recovery of interim compensation amount.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 138 N.I. Act before the concerned court below. On the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2, the concerned court below took cognizance and summoned the applicant for facing the trial. After conclusion of trial, the concerned court below vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 convicted the applicant under Section 138 N.I. Act for six months simple imprisonment and awarded fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine one month additional simple imprisonment. The concerned court below has also clarified that out of total amount of fine/compensation of Rs. 4 lacs, Rs. 3.90 lacs has been directed to be paid in favour of opposite party no.2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court dated 12.03.2019, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 before the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on 11.04.2019 along with interim bail application. Thereafter, the Appellate Court vide order dated 11.04.2019 has admitted the appeal and released the applicant on bail with furnishing two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-and further directed the applicant to deposit 50% amount of total fine imposed by the trial court. Subsequently, against the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Court, the applicant approached before this Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has modified the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Appellate Court to the extent that applicant would deposit 20% of total fine imposed by the trial court. Taking into account the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Appellate Court vide order dated 24.01.2020 directed the applicant to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount.

5. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that husband of the applicant died in jail on 11.11.2019 during medical treatment and the applicant is also continuously ill and undergoing treatment after death of her husband. Therefore, she is not in a position to deposit 20% of compensation amount. In such circumstances, considering the condition of the applicant, till disposal of appeal, the amount of fine/penalty, which is to be paid by the applicant may be kept in abeyance. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2019(10) ACC (SH) 329, wherein, it has been held that since the appeal was admitted for final hearing and the applicant is hopeful of being successful in the appeal, it is justifiable to keep the amount of penalty in abeyance till disposal of appeal.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has conceded the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in the special circumstances, wherein the appeal has been admitted for final hearing an