ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos. 3381/09, 3382/00, 3383/09, 5384/09, 3385/09, 3386/09 and 3387/09 as the question involved in all the petitions is one and the same. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.4.2009 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Indore in Cri. Case No. 15645/2006, whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for a period of three months with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner. It was alleged that upon presentation the cheque was bounced and the cheque amount was not paid despite notice. It was prayed that the petitioner be convicted. After the trial learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 17.4.2009. On the date of judgment petitioner was not present. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal and also the application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., wherein it was prayed that the jail sentence be suspended. The application was opposed by the respondent and was dismissed by the appellate Court on the ground that since the petitioner was not present before the Court at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and also did not apply for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1), Cr.P.C, therefore; the application was dismissed, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was present before the Court on 16.4.2009 when the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment but the judgment could not be pronounced on that date and the judgment was pronounced on 17.4.2009. It is submitted that petitioner could notappear at the time of delivery of judgment, therefore, petitioner preferred appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that the learned appellate Court committed error in dismissing the application on the ground that petitioner was not present before the Trial Court. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the jail sentence be suspended or in alternative impugned order be set aside with a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 4. Mr. It is submitted that the learned appellate Court committed error in dismissing the application on the ground that petitioner was not present before the Trial Court. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the jail sentence be suspended or in alternative impugned order be set aside with a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 4. Mr. Sudesh Haswani, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court, which can be corrected by this Court. It is submitted that since the petitioner was not present before the Court at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, therefore, the application was rightly dismissed by the appellate Court. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. C.B.I. III (2006) CCR 48 (SC) : AIR 2006 SC 2449 , wherein it was held that Section 389(3) has application when there is a right of appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits, hence the same be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that in all the cases the petitioner accused is M/s. Noble Packagings and the complainant is M/s. Plasto Pack. In all the cases the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In each of the case the cheque amount and the date of cheque are as under: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. No. M.Cr.C. No. Date of cheque Cheque amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 3380/2009 18.6.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 3381/2009 30.7.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 3382/2009 15.8.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 13,700/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 3383/2009 10.9.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 3384/2009 20.10.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 3385/2009 15.11.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 13,700/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. 3386/2009 15.12.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 13,700/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 3387/2009 15.1.2006 Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 13,700/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. From perusal of be record it is evident that the appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted. Under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction the appeal can be filed as of right. The application filed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. are generally being allowed and the jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of the appeal otherwise the appeal itself will become infructuous. Under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction the appeal can be filed as of right. The application filed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. are generally being allowed and the jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of the appeal otherwise the appeal itself will become infructuous. In the present case the contention of the petitioner was that the date of judgment was fixed as 16.4.2009 and the petitioner was very much present in the Court but on that dale no judgment was pronounced and the judgment was pronounced on subsequent date i.e. on 17.4.2009. Since the petitioner was appearing on each of the date during the trial and the alleged offence was compoundable and also the fact that the petitioner was present on 16.4.2009 and on that date no judgment was pronounced, there was no justification on the part of the learned appellate Court to treat the petitioner as absconder and to dismiss the application only on the ground that the petitioner was absent when the judgment was pronounced by the learned trial Court. 8. In view of this petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence was dismissed is set aside with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and also the appearance on the dates to be fixed by the appellate Court and also the surety bond of the like amount. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. Copy of this order be placed in the record of all the concerned cases.