JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears for respondent No. 2 though service of notice available on record dated 13.3.2008. 2. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 1.32008 passed by the Sessions Judge. Sirohi (for short. "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal (116) Appeal No. 8 of 2008 to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,000/- while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sirohi (for short, "the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 403 of 2008. 3. I have heard learnd Counsel for the petitioner-accused and the Public Prosecutor. 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 fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to further undergo the simple imprisonment for 45 days. 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. 11 (2001) BC 57 (SC)=I (2001) SLT 528= and a decision of the Kerala High Court in P.P. Mohammad v. State of Kerala. III (2007) BC 155= 5. In Stanny Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 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 field 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 he suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the order of the High Court was held to he justified. 6. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P. P. Mohanuned v. State of Kerala (supra). 7. 6. Similar view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in P. P. Mohanuned v. State of Kerala (supra). 7. Haying 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 sutra of Rs. 85.000/- out of the fine amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. In my view, the ends of justice would be met in modifying the condition of depositing the amount instead of Rs. 85,000/-, it sum of Rs. 25,000/-. which comes nearly ⅕th of the amount of fine 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. 25,000/- as the part of fine amount. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Court are maintained.With the modifications the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******