Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1144 (RAJ)

Deen Mohamed v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-27

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of this Criminal Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner has challenged that part of the order dated 7.5.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.40/2015 whereby the learned appellate Court directed the accused-petitioner to deposit an amount of rupees two lacs within a period of one month from the date of the aforesaid order in the trial Court. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the learned trial Court i.e. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.26/2015 vide its judgment and order dated 9.4.2015 convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and with a fine of rupees twenty lacs. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal before the appellate Court and while suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellate Court vide impugned order dated 7.5.2015 imposed upon the petitioner the aforesaid condition which is subject matter of the present petition. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court is a bailable one and when the learned appellate Court while exercising its power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was pleased to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial Court, it had no authority to impose the aforesaid condition and to that extent the order is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Amarveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) DCR 502. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law including that relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. 7. reported in 2001 (1) DCR 502. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law including that relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The well settled legal position is that while exercising its discretionary power to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellate Court should not impose such condition which is onerous and arbitrary and which virtually amounts to denial of bail itself to the accused-appellant, but at the same time, legal position is also that the appellate Court is empowered to impose such condition, which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to the appellate Court to be reasonable and not arbitrary. In the present case, the condition to deposite the amount of rupees two lacs in the trial Court cannot be said to be onerous, unreasonable or arbitrary looking to the amount of cheque in dispute and the sentence awarded by the trial Court. So far as the case law relied on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is of no help to him.Consequently, the criminal misc.petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******