ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. By the instant petition, the accused-petitioner has challenged order dated 20th of October, 2016 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court, while suspending sentence awarded to the petitioner, has imposed a condition of depositing Rs.60,000/- within fifteen days. 2. The facts, in brief giving rise to this petition, are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Negotiable Instrument Act and, after conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him for one year simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court also awarded compensation to the complainant by resorting to Section 357 Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while acceding to his prayer for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., has suspended the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court with certain riders. The learned appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- within fifteen days. It is with this condition the petitioner is aggrieved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jain, submits that no such condition can be imposed by the learned appellate Court while exercising power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of coordinate Bench in case of Amarveer Singh v. State & Ors., 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 414. 5. Having considered the matter and upon examining the judgment aforesaid, I deem it just and appropriate to interfere with the impugned order to the extent it has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, while maintaining the order impugned suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the condition for deposition of Rs.60,000/- is, hereby, waived. 6. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Petition disposed of as above.