Order : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-I (herein after is referred to as 'the appellate Court') in Regular Criminal Appeal No.44/2024 (Suresh Kumar Bhakdiwal Vs. State and Anr.), whereby the appellate Court while allowing the application for suspension of sentence of the accused-petitioner, has imposed a condition of depositing twenty percent (20%) i.e. Rs.74,800/- of the compensation amount within a period of sixty (60) days. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to an Average Poverty Line Category (in short 'APL') and he is maintaining his family after getting 'ration' under the National Food Security Act. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. : (2023) 10 SCC 446 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2741/2023 (SLP (Crl.) No.4927/2023) decided on 04.09.2023 and so also the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.2745/2024 (Ram Kumar Vs. Manish Kumar & Anr.) and further submits that looking to the financial condition of the petitioner, the condition of depositing twenty percent (20%) of the compensation amount as imposed by the appellate Court upon the petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2024, may be waived. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Heard. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to financial condition of the petitioner and also perused the judgments as referred above. 7. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 06.11.2024, passed by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I.Act Cases) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Regular Criminal Case No.4153/2022 (C.I.S. No.13045/2020) for offence under Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'N.I.Act') and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,74,000/- and in default of payment of compensation amount, he has to undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. 8. The petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentenced, preferred an appeal No.44/2024 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 allowed the application for suspension of sentence. 8. The petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentenced, preferred an appeal No.44/2024 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 allowed the application for suspension of sentence. The petitioner alongwith the application for suspension of sentence, moved an application to waive the requirement of depositing twenty percent (20%) i.e. Rs.74,800/- of the compensation amount, as per the provisions of Section 148 N.I.Act. 9. The appellate Court vide order dated 06.12.2024 allowed the application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner, however, imposed the condition of depositing twenty percent (20%) i.e. Rs.74,800/- of the compensation amount within a period of sixty (60) days. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) has observed as under:- "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. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception." 11. The Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jodhpur in case of Ram Kumar (supra) has observed as under:- "6. While, on the other hand, he is sanguine that he has a good case in appeal. He will succeed in the same, but due to his inability to pay he is not able to defend himself in the further proceedings until he complies with the order impugned herein. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am in agreement with the arguments canvassed by him. 8. In the premise, after perusing the impugned order and the case file, I am of the view that looking at the financial condition of the petitioner, directing him to deposit 20% of the amount as per impugned order shall result in jeopardizing his appeal being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of deposit. He seems to be in financial distress and has to be granted indulgence in the larger interest of justice to enable him to defend himself in the pending appeal. 9. As an upshot, keeping in view the ratio of Apex Court judgment in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order is set-aside. Learned sessions judge shall proceed with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and dispose of the same in accordance with law." 12. 9. As an upshot, keeping in view the ratio of Apex Court judgment in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order is set-aside. Learned sessions judge shall proceed with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and dispose of the same in accordance with law." 12. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in above paras and also looking to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jodhpur in case of Ram Kumar (supra), this Court deems just and proper to modify the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned appellate Court to the extent that the petitioner shall deposit five percent (5%) of the fine/compensation amount in place of twenty percent (20%). 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands partly allowed and the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the appellate Court i.e. the Court of learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-I, is modified only to the extent of fine/compensation amount and the petitioner is directed to deposit five percent (5%) of the fine/compensation amount in place of twenty percent (20%) within a period of two weeks and rest of the condition imposed by the appellate Court shall remain as it is. 14. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit five percent (5%) of the fine/compensation amount within a period of two weeks from today, the order dated 06.12.2024 will come into force/existence automatically and the petitioner would be entitled for the relief of suspension of the sentence only on depositing twenty percent (20%) of the compensation amount as directed by the appellate Court. 15. Till then, no coercive steps be taken against the present petitioner. 16. Stay application stands disposed of. All pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.