JUDGMENT Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9.6.2010, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010, below application Exh.5, and also prayed for direction to deposit the amollnt of compensation of Rs.l,17,314/- in the court. FACTUAL MATRIX : 3. The petitioner is the original accused in complaint S.T.C.C. No.649 of 2006. filed by present respondent no.1 (original complainant) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Latur, on 24.2.2006. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner appeared therein after issuance of process and contested the said application, contending that the amount under the cheque in question was time barred and there was no legal enforceable debt and two cheques in question were issued towards the security of the amount and those were the blank cheques. However, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Latur, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, as well as directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.1,17,314/- towards the compensation, within the period of two months, payable to the complainant, failing which the petitioner was directed to suffer imprisonment for the period of six months, by way of judgment and order dated 5.5.2010. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 5.5.2010 (Exh. 'A' page 11), the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur, as well as preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010 for condonation of delay therein on 8.6.2010. Moreover, the petitioner herein also filed an application Exh.5 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010 and thereby prayed for suspension of substantive sentence (Exh. 'B' page 24). Moreover, the petitioner herein also filed an application Exh.5 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010 and thereby prayed for suspension of substantive sentence (Exh. 'B' page 24). The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur, passed an order on the said application Exh.5 on 9.6.2010 and thereby suspended the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner herein, on the condition that the petitioner to deposit the entire compensation amount 0fRs.l, 17,314/ - in eleven monthly installnents and the first installment was to be deposited on or before 25.6.2010 and the subsequent remaining installments of Rs.10,000/- per month were to be deposited on or before 25th day of each subsequent months, failing which the order of suspension of sentence was to stand terminated automatically, and in the mean time, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 9.6.2010 directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of compensation in the court as a condition precedent for suspension of substantive sentence, the petitioner has assailed the said order before this court by way of present petition. 6. Heard Shri. C. R. Deshpande, advocate for petitioner, Shri. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no. 1 and Smt. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. SUBMISSIONS: 7. Shri. C. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has specifically made averments in application Exh.5, filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010 before learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur that the petitioner/accused is the only person earning his family and his family members are dependent upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the averments made in para 5 of the present petition that the petitioner sustained heavy losses in the business and has required to stop his business in the year 2001-02 and he has got one son and two daughters. The son has passed B.Com. Recently in June, 2010 and attempting to secure admission for M.B.A. and one is admitted for Engineering course at Pune and another daughter is married recently in May, 2010, and therefore, the petitioner was required to incur huge expenditure for the said marriage. The son has passed B.Com. Recently in June, 2010 and attempting to secure admission for M.B.A. and one is admitted for Engineering course at Pune and another daughter is married recently in May, 2010, and therefore, the petitioner was required to incur huge expenditure for the said marriage. It is also averred in the said paragraph that the petitioner is presently serving with M/s. Nagesh Trading Company and is earning salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and out of the said meagre income the petitioner has to maintain his wife and manage the education of the son and the daughter. 8. On the basis of the said averments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the circumstances thereunder, the condition of deposit of compensation amount imposed by the lower Appellate Court is too harsh for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the learned Appellate Court has granted installments to deposit the said compensation amount, he is unable to pay the said entire amount in the court, considering his financial difficulties. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the facts and the circumstances of the present case, direction to deposit the entire compensation amount while suspending substantive sentence by the lower Appellate Court is unwarranted and the petitioner should have been directed to deposit the reasonable amount of compensation while suspending the substantive sentence. 10. In the said context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following observations made by this court in the case of Javed Hanif Quareshi Vs. Lakharu Traders, reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 809. "12. This Court by order dated 30th July, 2008, directed the applicant to deposit 25% amount instead of 50% as directed by the Sessions Court. It is true that normally the Court should direct to deposit entire amount of compensation. However, such direction necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court taking a reasonable view passed interim order on 30th July, 2008, directing the applicant to deposit 25% amount in stead of 50% amount as directed by the Sessions Court. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to interim order of this Court, the present applicant has deposited the amount. This Court taking a reasonable view passed interim order on 30th July, 2008, directing the applicant to deposit 25% amount in stead of 50% amount as directed by the Sessions Court. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to interim order of this Court, the present applicant has deposited the amount. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the lower appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the applicant expeditiously and till then effect and operation of judgment and order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur is stayed." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention towards the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofDilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. And anr., reported at 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1175 (S.C.). The relevant observations thereunder are as follows: "Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia read with section 374 of Cri.P.C. confers a right of appeal. Such a right is an absolute one. In a case where a judgment of conviction has been awarded, the Court can release a person on bail having regard to the nature of offence but as also the other relevant factors including its effect on society. A person upon arrest may have to remain in jail as an under trial prisoner. So would a person upon conviction. A person may also have to remain in jail, in the event he defaults in payment of fine. if he is so directed. But when a direction is issued for payment of compensation, having regard to sub-section (2) of section 357 of the Code. the application thereof should ordinarily be directed to be stayed. It will, therefore, be for the Court to stay the operation of that part of the judgment whereby and whereunder compensation has been directed to be paid, which would necessarily mean that some conditions therefor may also be imposed. A fortiori a part of the amount of compensation may be directed to be deposited, but the same must be a reasonable amount. An order may not be passed which the appellant cannot comply with resulting him being sent to prison. Appellate Court, in such cases, must make an endeavour to strike a balance. Section 421 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure may take recourse to, but therefor he cannot be remanded to custody. An order may not be passed which the appellant cannot comply with resulting him being sent to prison. Appellate Court, in such cases, must make an endeavour to strike a balance. Section 421 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure may take recourse to, but therefor he cannot be remanded to custody. " 12. Learned counsel Shri. Mukul Kulkarni for respondent no. I opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the averments made by the petitioner in the application Exh.5, preferred in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010, learned lower Appellate Court has rightly passed the order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation in convenient installments, and therefore, no interference therein is warranted in the present petition. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 also pointed out that the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the present petition that the son of the petitioner is securing admission for M.B.A., and one daughter is studying Engineering course at Pune and another daughter is married recently, have not been made in the application Exh.5 before the lower Appellate Court and the said averments are made for the first time in the present petition, and therefore, learned lower Appellate Court had no occasion to consider the said averments and further submitted that the learned lower Appellate Court, therefore has passed the order rightly, and no interference therein is called for. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has supported the order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 9.6.2010. 13. Smt. B. R. Khekale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2 submitted to the orders of the court. CONSIDERATION: 14. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2, and also considering the observations made in the above referred Rulings, there cannot be any dispute that filing appeal before the lower Appellate Court by the petitioner against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 5.5.2010, is a right of the petitioner and while considering the prayer of the petitioner in respect of suspension of substantive sentence, reasonable and liberal approach has to be adopted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore. direction issued by the lower Appellate Court in the order dated 9.6.2010 to deposit the entire compensation amount may be in installments while suspending the substantive sentence. appears to be too harsh, more particularly, considering the very averments of the petitioner in the said application that he is the only earning member in his family and all the members are dependent upon him, and therefore, the said condition of deposit of compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,17,314/- deserves to be modified to the reasonable extent. 15. Normally, direction to deposit 50% amount of the total compensation amount would be reasonable one, but the said aspect also depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the total compensation amount of Rs.l,17,314/- in the lower Appellate Court within the reasonable period i.e. within six weeks would be proper and appropriate which would meet the ends of justice, while suspending the substantive sentence of the petitioner. However, simultaneously, direction is required to be issued to the learned lower Appellate Court to expedite the hearing of the said appeal. 17. In the result, present petition is allowed partly and the order dated 9.6.2010, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2010 on Exh.5 therein by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur, stands quashed and set aside to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire amount of compensation in the court in installments as stated therein, as a condition precedent for suspension of substantive sentence, and the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the total compensation amount of Rs.l,17,314/- in the lower Appellate Court within six weeks from today, and accordingly. the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Trial Court shall stand suspended till the disposal of Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner before learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur and in the event of failure by the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period as aforesaid, the suspension of substantive sentence stands cancelled automatically. Learned lower Appellate Court is also directed to conduct the hearing of the said Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously. 18. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms accordingly. 19. Learned lower Appellate Court is also directed to conduct the hearing of the said Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously. 18. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms accordingly. 19. At the request of learned counsel for respondent no.1, liberty granted to respondent no. 1 to withdraw the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, after depositing by the petitioner before the lower Appellate Court on the usual terms and conditions and on furnishing usual undertaking and necessary security. Ordered accordingly.