JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail (SOS) application filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. By the accused-petitioner Ram Kumar who was convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as follows: 2. In Criminal Case No. 585/2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner by judgment dated 30.4.2010 under Section 138, N.I. Act, 1881 by six months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of rupees two laces to the complainant. 3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar has dismissed the Appeal No. 30/2010 of accused Ram Kumar on 16.4.2013 and the judgment of the trial Court was upheld by him. 4. When this Court proposed that amount of fine or its part should be deposited by the revision petitioner for getting the order of suspension in his favour, the proposal was not favoured by the petitioner. Following rulings are relevant here: (1) Amarveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2010(1) Cr.L.R. 414 . In this case, it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if Appellate Court suspends the sentence passed under Section 138, N.I. Act on the condition to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation in the trial Court, then it will not be permissible. While allowing the misc. petition, the order of the lower Court to the extent of imposition of condition of 50% of fine was quashed and set aside and the Registrar General was also directed to circulate a copy of that order to all the Appellate Courts in respect of offence under Section 138, N.I. Act in that case. 5. Here another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is much relevant. Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 328. In this case, appeal was under the N.I. Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court thought it fit to ask petitioner to deposit rupees one lac towards the compensation under the N.I. Act in the trial Court and further liberty was given to the complainant to withdraw that amount from the Court. (2) Stany Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders (P) Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 416 . In this case it was held that while entertaining the appeals, a part of fine should be directed to be deposited. (2) Stany Felix Pinto v. Jangid Builders (P) Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 416 . In this case it was held that while entertaining the appeals, a part of fine should be directed to be deposited. In this case, out of fine of Rupees twenty lacs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered to deposit rupees four lacs in the trial Court during the pendency of the appeal. 6. In this revision before us, conviction order was passed by the trial Court which was upheld by the Appellate Court and so the revision petitioner has no absolute right to get the sentence passed by the Courts below suspended in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner should argue the matter finally on merits then he should deposit at least 50% of the amount of compensation as ordered in the trial Court in this case within fifteen days from today. Such amount, if deposited will be payable to the complainant unconditionally as was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar referred earlier. 7. So it is hereby ordered that if the revision petitioner accused Ram Kumar deposits 50% of the amount of compensation as was ordered in the case in the trial Court within the stipulated time and then after he submits a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 30.5.2013 and as and when called upon to do so, his remaining sentence be suspended till further orders. 8. This order will be revisable after every six months to check the delay which is usually caused by the accused-persons in such type of matters. 9. The revision is admitted for hearing. Issue notice to the respondent and call for.'the record. Put up on 30.5.2013 for further proceedings.Tile application for suspension of sentence is disposed of accordingly.Application disposed of. *******