Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The learned trial Court vide its Judgment and order dated 26.02.2005 convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, with a compensation of Rs. ten lacs to be paid to the complainant. The petitioners challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence in appeal before the Court of Sessions. After hearing arguments on the application for suspension of execution of sentence, the appellate Court vide its order dated 22.03.2005, ordered that sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of appeal provided he deposits a sum of Rs. 4 lacs with the trial Court within a period of 15 days and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-with one surety in the like amount with the stipulation that he shall appear before the appellate Court during pendency of appeal. 2. In this petition the grievance of the petitioner is that he is required by the appellate Court to remit a huge amount of rupees 4 lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in Stanny Felxi Pinto vs. M/s. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2001 (1) Crimes 190 (SC), learned Counsel submitted since amount of fine of Rs. four lacs as ordered to be remitted by the appellate Court as a condition to suspend the sentence is too excessive, a portion thereof may be ordered to be remitted as the petitioner wants the sentence to be suspended. 3. I have considered the above argument and have gone through the case law cited at the bar. In Stanny Felix Pinto (Supra), the accused was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and a fine of Rs.20 lacs was imposed. The High Court while entertaining the revision petition of the accused granted suspension of sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in Court with a specified time. The High Court ordered to remit an amount of Rs. 4 lacs i.e., 20% of the fine imposed on the accused. Against this order, the accused had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court did not interfere with the order passed by the High Court. 4. The High Court ordered to remit an amount of Rs. 4 lacs i.e., 20% of the fine imposed on the accused. Against this order, the accused had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court did not interfere with the order passed by the High Court. 4. Undisputedly while suspending the sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount appears to be heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended. In the case at hand the petitioner is required by the Appellate Court to remit a huge amount of rupees 4 lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. In my considered view the amount of fine is heavy and since the petitioner wants the sentence to be suspended, I feel that atleast a portion of the fine should be remitted by the petitioner. Keeping in view the law propounded in the above cited case, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to remit atleast a portion thereof . I feel that it would be just and conscionable that petitioner should be directed to remit a sum of Rs. two lacs i.e., 20% of the fine imposed. 5. Consequently, it is ordered that instead Rs. 4 lacs the petitioner is directed to remit a part thereof i.e., Rs. two lacs within a period of 15 days from today, as the petitioner wants the sentence to be suspended during pendency of appeal. 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.