ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court'), whereby the appellate court imposed a condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- while suspending the sentence of the petitioner on an application preferred under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.513/2010 has convicted the petitioner S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.806/2016 Narendra Saini v. Suresh Kumar Saini for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him for six months' simple imprisonment and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- vide judgment dated 29.10.2014. 3. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.10.2014 the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the appellate court. Along with aforesaid appeal, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. was also preferred for suspension of sentence awarded by trial court. The appellate court has allowed the application for suspension of sentence while imposing the pre condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner has challenged the imposition of condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of this criminal misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while exercising the powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 389 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has illegally imposed the condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- and as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.806/2016 Narendra Saini v. Suresh Kumar Saini such the order passed by the appellate court up to that extent is illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in case of Bhagwati Sahay Katriya v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 684 and submitted that this Court has categorically held in above mentioned case that no such condition can be imposed by the appellate court while exercising powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 389 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- as imposed in the order dated 11.02.2016 may be deleted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is unable to dispute the said position of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- as imposed in the order dated 11.02.2016 may be deleted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is unable to dispute the said position of law. 8. This Court in Bhagwati Sahay Katriya's case (supra) while taking into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court has laid down that no such pre-condition of depositing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.806/2016 Narendra Saini v. Suresh Kumar Saini part of compensation can be imposed by a Court while exercising powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 389 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of above, this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the condition of depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- mentioned in the order dated 11.02.2016 is ordered to be deleted. The impugned order dated 11.02.2016 is modified accordingly. Stay petition is disposed of.