JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 17.4.2008 the notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents. Notice has been served on the contesting respondent No.2. No one appears for the respondent No.2 though served. 2. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 01.4.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, the Appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2008 to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 20-3-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh (for short, the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.275/2007. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to the imprisonment of six months and a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, in default of payment of compensation to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Buildings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 416 ; and a decision of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala, 2006 (1) DCR 526 : 2006 (2) NIJ 282 (Ker.) . 5. In Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the accused therein was sentenced with the imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-. While suspending the sentence of imprisonment and fine, the High Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/-. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court held that it is advisable that the court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the court can direct at least a portion thereof to be remitted as the convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the order of the High Court was held to be justified. 6. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala (supra). 7. 6. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammed v. State of Kerala (supra). 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Appellate Court was not justified in directing the petitioner-accused to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. In my view, the ends of justice would be met in modifying the condition of depositing the amount instead of Rs.2,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, which comes ⅕th of the amount of compensation imposed. 8. Consequently, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the petitioner-appellant by the trial Court will remain suspended, provided the petitioner submits the personal bond and the surety bond as directed by the Appellate Court and also deposits a sum of Rs.80,000/- as the part of compensation amount within ten days from today. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court are maintained.With these modification, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed *******