ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) impugns the order dated 15.07.2024 of learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.54 of 2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State. Notice was served on respondent No.1/complainant but none entered appearance. 3. On a complaint lodged by respondent No.1 herein alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) said to have been committed by the present revision petitioner, learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam tried the case in C.C.No.262 of 2020 and finally by judgment dated 19.06.2024 found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced her in the following terms : “Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months apart from paying a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) being the cheque amount covered by Ex.P.1 under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of this judgment, and in default of payment of compensation, as was ordered, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.” 4. Aggrieved by that, the convict preferred Crl.A.No.54 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge. The convict also preferred an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2024. After due hearing by a detailed order dated 15.07.2024 the learned appellate Court allowed that petition in the following terms : “In the result, the petition is allowed suspending the sentence imposed for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam in C.C.No.262 of 2020, dt.19.06.2024 till disposal of the main Crl.A.No.54 of 2024 on condition of depositing 20% (twenty percent) of awarded compensation amount in the trial Court within one month from the date of this order and also on execution of personal bond by the petitioner/appellant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam. On failure to comply the conditions this order stands revoked and the trial Court shall take steps to serve out the sentence imposed by it.” 5. Aggrieved by that, the convict preferred this revision. 6. Learned counsel submits that the direction of the learned appellate Court to the extent of directing this revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount is incorrect and illegal and requires interference. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776. 7. Learned counsel further submits that a learned Judge of this Court in Engamuri Ramya v. Smt. Pandiri Sarada Kamal, Crl.P.No.4324 of 2024 order dated 11.07.2024 set aside such orders which are akin to the order impugned here and remanded the petition to the appellate Court for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The further submission of the learned counsel is with reference to certain financial difficulties and ill-health of petitioner’s son which is not made part of the grounds in the revision. 8. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction this Court could only address as to whether the order impugned is illegal or improper. On considering the material on record and the ruling cited by the petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, the following aspects are to be stated: The revision petitioner was found guilty and was convicted by the trial Court and she impugned the same before the learned Sessions Judge by way of an appeal. She prayed for suspension of execution of sentence pending hearing of first appeal and the prayer was granted by the learned Sessions Judge. One of the conditions imposed is a direction to this revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. It is undisputed that such an order would be passed in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Thus, what was done by the learned appellate Court is one that is provided by the statute. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. However, the forceful submission of the learned counsel is that incorporating such a condition directing the convict to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is not mandatory and the learned appellate Court could have omitted such term in its order and failing to do so resulted in illegality in the light of the rulings cited. However, the forceful submission of the learned counsel is that incorporating such a condition directing the convict to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is not mandatory and the learned appellate Court could have omitted such term in its order and failing to do so resulted in illegality in the light of the rulings cited. Therefore, these rulings are to be considered now. 9. In Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra 1), paragraph Nos.6 and 7 read as below : “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.” What happened in that case before their Lordships was that the Courts below ordered deposit of 20% on the premise that it was an absolute legal obligation to impose such a condition by virtue of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Such assumption was found to be erroneous by their Lordships and it was in those circumstances their Lordships laid down the law as mentioned in the above extracted paragraphs. 10. What is seen from the above ratio makes it very clear that every appellate Court while suspending the sentence is justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 of the N.I. Act. 10. What is seen from the above ratio makes it very clear that every appellate Court while suspending the sentence is justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 of the N.I. Act. However, such a stipulation is not an absolute legal mandate, and it is stated that in those cases where the facts make it clear to the appellate judge that imposition of such a condition would amount to deprivation of the right of appeal then an exception could be made and such a condition could be omitted. In the impugned order before this Court the learned Sessions Judge found the same question argued before her and at page No.4 a specific observation was recorded that from the material on record she could not see any financial distress or other cause on part of the appellant therein to persuade her to omit the condition of deposit of 20% of amount. Thus, the case before me is a case where the question was raised before the appellate Court and the question was answered by the appellate Court and while answering the question necessary reasons were incorporated by the learned appellate Court. Simply because another view could be taken is no reason to interfere with a discretion that was properly exercised by the appellate Court. 11. In Engamuri Ramya’s case (supra 2) at paragraph No.8, the learned Judge made a record of the reasons which read as below : “08. Considering the rival submissions and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 9 & 10 of the above judgment, the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order without any finding whether the case falls in exception or not, to “deposit of 20% of the compensation amount before the trial Court within sixty (60) days from the date of this order” is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred above. In the said circumstances the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is setting aside. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Judge to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court paras 9 & 10 of the above judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others.” 12. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Judge to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court paras 9 & 10 of the above judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others.” 12. That is a case where this Court ruled as above on the premise that in the impugned order therein there was no requisite finding or observation as to why deposit was ordered. This ruling does not assist the petitioner since in the case at hand, as mentioned earlier, the impugned order made a specific record of its observations on this specific aspect of the matter. It should be made clear that their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited ruling made it crystal clear that incorporation of condition of deposit of 20% is the usual condition that shall be incorporated in the orders granting suspension of execution of sentence and the need for recording special reasons arise only in those cases where the Court intends to omit the condition of deposit. In the petition filed before the appellate Court one does not find any such specific cause to bring the case within the exception. In such event, the learned appellate Court was certainly justified in incorporating the condition concerning deposit. There is absolutely no merit in this revision and the order impugned is clearly in accordance with law and facts. 13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order dated 15.07.2024 of learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.54 of 2024 stands confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.