JUDGMENT 1. - This second application for suspension of the sentence, to the extent of fine, has been filed under section 389 Cr.P.C. by the accused appellants in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 1564/07. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order. 3. It was, inter alia, contended that the appellants have been convicted for the offence under section 148, 452, 324 and 323; their substantive sentence was suspended by this court on 21.8.07, however, the sentence of fine, which comes to the tune of about Rs. 20,000/-, was not suspended. It was then contended that since the accused appellants are poor agriculturists and at present they are not in a position to arrange the amount of fine, the sentence of fine awarded to the appellants may also be suspended. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in Dilip S. Dhanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Another, JT 2007 (6) SC 204 ; Mool Chand v. State, 1992 RCC 289 ; and Bay Leathers Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Saileela, 1998 Cri.L.J. 3719 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and contended that the orders under section 389 Cr.PC. are discriminatory in nature. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature of offence, for which the appellants have been convicted, and also the fact that they are said to be poor agriculturists, to meet the interest of justice I deem it proper to suspend execution of the sentence of fine also, on the condition that each of the appellants furnishes a personal bond along with a surety to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, to the satisfaction of the trial court that in the event of dismissal of this appeal, they shall deposit the fine amount within a period of one month.Ordered accordingly.Sentences Suspended as Above. *******