ORDER :- Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these criminal petitions and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-state. Notices were ordered to the second respondent in both these petitions at the stage of admission. Notices were served but they did not turn up. 2. Having regard to the circumstances in which the impugned orders came to be passed in each of these two petitions and as the point involved is the same, both these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. These criminal petitions came to be filed in the following circumstances: The petitioners in both these petitions are different and they are complainants in CC No.78 of 2007 and CC No.77 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet. Both the cases have been instituted as private complaints alleging offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not necessary to go into the other details. 4. The trial Court after considering the matters and upon contest by separate judgments dated 28.8.2008, convicted the accused for the above offences in each of the said cases and sentenced each of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months but without imposing fine, it awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in each case under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. which constitutes the cheque amount in each case. 5. Both the accused filed separate criminal appeals. The accused in CC No.78 of 2007 filed Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2008 and along with that appeal he filed Crl. MP No.57 of 2008 for suspension of sentences. In the petition i.e. in Crl. MP No.57 of 2008, the accused also made a mention that he was filing a separate petition for suspension of the order relating to payment of compensation. 6. Similarly, the accused in CC No.77 of 2007 preferred Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2008 against his conviction 'and sentences. Along with that Appeal, he also filed Crl. MP No.58 of 2008, for suspension of the sentences and in that petition also he mentioned that he was filing a separate petition for suspension of the order relating to payment of the compensation. 7. Along with that Appeal, he also filed Crl. MP No.58 of 2008, for suspension of the sentences and in that petition also he mentioned that he was filing a separate petition for suspension of the order relating to payment of the compensation. 7. The appellate Court i.e. the III Additional District Judge's Court Kadapa at Rajampet in both the above Criminal M.Ps passed separate orders, but it would be sufficient to note the separate order passed in Crl. MP No.57 of 2008 and it reads as follows : "Heard both sides. The substantial sentence and conviction imposed against the appellant by the trial Court is suspended subject to the appellant depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the C.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet and also on his execution of self bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court". In Criminal MP No.58 of 2008 i.e., in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2008, the very same above order has been repeated. 8. It should be noted that normally when a criminal appeal is filed from a conviction, it is the usual practice for the appellate Court to suspend only the substantive sentence of imprisonment while directing him to pay the fine amount In this case, no fines were imposed in both the cases but respective accused therein were directed to pay compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. However, both the above orders read that the Appellate Court observed that only substantial sentence and conviction imposed against the appellants in each case were suspended thereby indicating that the Appellate Court proceeded to suspend the conviction as well without indicating what substantial sentence it was suspending. The Appellate Court, it can be said that without giving any reasons proceeded to suspend the conviction without giving any reasons for doing so and without indicating what it meant by using the word 'substantial sentence' and what substantial sentence it was suspending. This approach of the appellate Court, in my opinion, cannot be said to be correct. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that both these criminal petitions should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside and the matters should be sent back to the Appellate Court i.e. III Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rajampet to pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that both these criminal petitions should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside and the matters should be sent back to the Appellate Court i.e. III Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rajampet to pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. Accordingly they are allowed. 9. It is seen that the trial Court in each of the above calendar cases granted suspension of sentences to the respective accused in order to enable them to file appeals. In the special circumstances of this case, the suspension of the sentences granted by the trial Court to the accused in each case shall be continued for a further period 'of six (6) weeks and they shall take steps to pursue their criminal petitions for suspension of sentences in their Criminal Appeals and also other petitions to be filed by them, as expeditiously as possible within the above period of six (6) weeks. Thereupon, the appellate Court may pass appropriate orders according to law, in these matters.