The court may modify conditions for suspension of sentence, such as reducing surety amounts and adjusting deposit requirements, by considering the nature of the offence, the age of the convict, and any payments already made toward the complainant.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad below Application Exh.4 in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2024.

2. The facts of the matter are such that the Petitioner herein was convicted by the learned Trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and was also directed to pay the amount of Rs.18 Lakhs to the Complainant within a period of 30 days.

2.1 Against the said order, the Petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Court at Valsad. Pending the Appeal, an Application for suspension of sentence was also submitted by the Petitioner. The learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order allowed the said Application, however imposed the condition for the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of fine / the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court to the complainant. The Petitioner was further directed to furnish the surety of Rs.2 Lakhs and a personal bond of the like amount.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pending the trial the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs has already been paid by the Petitioner to the complainant. The Petitioner is further ready to deposit the amount of Rs.75,000/- before the learned Appellate Court. The Petitioner herein is aged about 80 Years and is the resident of Mumbai and therefore it would not be possible for him to furnish surety of the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and a personal bond of the like amount. He therefore submitted to quash and set aside the order impugned in the present Petition so far as the condition is concerned.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Arsh R. Shaikh appearing for the Respondent – Complainant has opposed the Petition contending that the Petition is not maintainable as several applications with similar prayer are filed by the Petitioner before the learned Appellate Court and those applications are pending before the learned Appellate Court. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Petition.

5. Learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State has opposed the Application.

6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the complainant pending the trial and is further ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.75000/- before the Appellate Court, the condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court asking the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant, would be taken care of. The Petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.75000/- before the Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.

7. So far as the aspect of furnishing the surety worth Rs.2 Lakhs is concerned, the same appears to be on a higher side having regard to the nature of offence for which the Petitioner herein has been convicted.

8. Having regard to the same, the condition is modified to the effect that the Petitioner shall furnish surety worth Rs.10000/- with a personal bond of the like amount before the learned Appellate Court.

9. With these observations, the order impugned in the present Petition is modified to the aforesaid extent and the Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.