JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This application is preferred against the order passed below Exh.-4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur on 29-11-2014 imposing a condition of depositing of fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month from the date of order while suspending sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court in Summary Criminal Case No. 507/2013. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, this condition is unreasonable and beyond the means of the applicant and, therefore, should be moderated to a reasonable level. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant No. 1/State submits that the condition so imposed is reasonable and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is necessary. 6. Sentencing policy has to be implemented in accordance with its settled principles. One such principle is of principle of proportionality of the sentence. It makes the Court bear in mind that the sentence awarded by it is in proportion to the crime committed, its gravity and its consequences for the society. Another principle is that when sentences are to be awarded for criminal liabilities of varying nature, Court must see that sentence that is awarded to the lesser offender is lesser in severity than the sentence imposed upon the main or greater offender. 7. In the instant case, the main offenders are Pramod Pandurang Ghorad and Gajanan Ganeshrao Deokar. They have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The applicant was not made an accused in the said criminal case. The liability has been fastened upon him because he is the owner of the vehicle used for transportation of intoxicant without permit or licence and, therefore, his vehicle has been declared to be liable to confiscation. However, instead of confiscating the vehicle, exercising power under section 99 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. 8. The appeal which has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 7th November, 2014 in the said Summary Criminal Case No. 507/2013, as informed by the learned counsel for the applicant has been admitted by the lower Appellate Court. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. 8. The appeal which has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 7th November, 2014 in the said Summary Criminal Case No. 507/2013, as informed by the learned counsel for the applicant has been admitted by the lower Appellate Court. While admitting the appeal, the lower Appellate Court also suspended the sentence of fine subject to the condition that this applicant deposits in the Court fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. If the appellant whose appeal has been admitted for final hearing is called upon to deposit the entire fine amount, the order of suspension of sentence of fine would be meaningless for such appellant. He files an appeal against the order of sentence of fine only because he feels that the order is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. In the instant case, in addition to the fact that the appeal has been filed on the ground that the order of sentence of fine is against well settled principles of law, the order is too harsh and too onerous for the applicant to comply with it is the ground additionally taken. Prima facie, the order of fine amount Rs. 1,00,000/- appears to be harsh and onerous inasmuch as it amounts to handing out a greater sentence to a person whose criminal liability is of a lesser degree. It, prima facie, also leads to a situation wherein much less fine is imposed upon main offenders for criminal liability of a greater degree. In short, the impugned order does not take into account aforestated principles of sentencing policy. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned condition imposed in the order dated 29th November, 2014 is disproportionate to the crime committed and also too onerous for the appellant. It deserves to be modified. 9. In the result, I find that this application needs to be allowed. 10. The application is allowed. 11. In modification of the order dated 29th November, 2014, it is directed that the applicant now shall deposit part of the fine amount i.e. amount of Rs. 30,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. 12. It is made clear that remaining part of the order dated 29-11-2014 is confirmed. 13. The application is disposed of in these terms.