Judgment : 1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 2007 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of S. Shanmuga Velayudham Senior Counsel for A. Sivaji Advocate for the petitioner and of I. Paul Noble Devakumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) on behaalf of the respondent the Court made the following order:- The petitioners are A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, a-6 and A-8 respectively in S.C. No. 80 of 2005 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai District. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offences as detailed below:- 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking to suspend the fine amount imposed on them. The petitioners have also filed M.P. No. 2 of 2007 seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on them. By order dated 3.12.2007 this Court, while permitting the withdrawal of the petition so far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned, suspended the sentences and granted bail to A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-8 on the ground that they used sticks and caused injuries only to the witnesses. 3. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since all the petitioners are agricultural coolies belonging to the same family and they have no means for raising funds, the sentence of fine amount should also be suspended. He would also submit that the fine amount is exorbitant. He would further submit that if the sentence of fine amount is not suspended, the petitioners will be put to great hardship and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent as well. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that pending any appeal by a convicted persons, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond. A plain reading of the said Section would show that the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the execution of the sentence of order appealed against. A plain reading of the said Section would show that the Appellate Court has the power to suspend the execution of the sentence of order appealed against. The term sentence‘ or ‘order‘ employed in Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure, must be construed to be a sentence or order which are capable of being executed. Only such sentence or order which are capable of being executed can be suspended by the Appellate Court. The sentence of imprisonment as well as the direction for payment of fine are capable of being executable. In these circumstances, the discretionary power of the Appellate Court to suspend the execution of sentence must also necessarily include the execution of fine amount as well. However there could be two requirements before such an order of suspending the fine amount is ordered namely, as to the hardship of the accused-petitioners if the stay of execution of fine is not granted and while granting suspension, sufficient safeguards must be made to ensure the recovery of the fine amount in case the appeal is finally dismissed. 5. As far as the first requirement is concerned, it is the specific case of the petitioners that they belong to the same family and total fine comes to more than Rs.80,000/- and directing the payment of fine even pending appeal would be onerous and would cause hardship. In this context, we have to refer to the order this Court suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment and grant of bail in M.P. No. 2 of 2007 in Crl. A. No. 1014 of 2007. By virtue of the said order, the petitioners are entitled to come out on bail, but in the event the payment of fine is not suspended, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence of imprisonment and grant of bail. Moreover, they are agricultural coolies and such factors shall weigh in the mind of the Court while exercising the discretionary power to grant suspension of the direction for payment of fine as well. However, so far as the second requirement is concerned, certainly, this Court must ensure the payment of fine by the petitioners in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed. However, so far as the second requirement is concerned, certainly, this Court must ensure the payment of fine by the petitioners in case the appeal is ultimately dismissed. Accordingly, the direction for payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- by each of the petitioners for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is alone suspended till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the condition that each of the petitioners shall furnish property security, individually or jointly, equal to the above amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. The miscellaneous petition is ordered accordingly.