Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) Heard. 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 10 th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), the petitioner prefers this petition to set aside/modify the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 only to the extent of imposition of condition of payment of a sum of Rs.7,01,054/-, i.e., 20% of the fine amount is concerned. 2. Facts of this case in brief are that as per the complainant, the petitioner is a journalist who is operating a news agency at village Karhibhadar and engaged in distributing and publication of advertisement in the newspaper. The petitioner has published advertisement in the respondent newspaper against which the petitioner has issued a cheque dated 09-09-2017 bearing cheque No. 512532 of Bank of Baroda, Balod of a sum of Rs.4,93,700/-. On 12.09.2017, when the respondent has deposited said cheque to his bank account same gets dishonored with a note "Insufficient Fund". Thereafter, the respondent has issued a legal notice to the petitioner and despite the same when the petitioner has not paid the said amount, respondent has filed complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur bearing Criminal Case No. 313/19. Resultantly, the petitioner has faced the criminal trial and without appreciating the material and evidence available on record vide order dated 26-09-2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has convicted the petitioner with simple imprisonment for 02 years and fine of a sum of Rs.7,01,054/- and in default, the petitioner shall undergo further S.I for 30 days. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order dated 26-09-2024 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the learned Sessions Court along with an application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nyay Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and same was decided by the learned Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 09-10-2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby the learned Court below has allowed the said application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner with a condition to deposit 20% of sum of Rs. 7,01,054/- before the learned trial Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conviction of the petitioner by the learned JMFC is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7,01,054/- before the learned trial Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conviction of the petitioner by the learned JMFC is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that the respondent has just on the information received from the Bank and only on the basis of said apprehension and presumption, the respondent has preferred the criminal prosecution against the petitioner which is arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that suspension of sentence of convicted person also comes under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and any such condition cannot be imposed which can deprive him from his personal liberty. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2741 OF 2023 (@SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4927 OF 2023) hence, it is prayed that condition with regard to the payment of 20% of fine amount stipulated by the learned appellate Court within 60 days, may be set aside/modified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case, pleading made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, vide impugned order dated 09.10.2024, learned appellate Court has imposed the condition against the petitioner for payment of 20% amount of Rs.7,01,054/-, without assigning reasons as provided under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . 6. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides as under : “Section 148: Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent. of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A. of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A. (2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. (3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal.” 7. It is crystal clear that reasons must be mentioned in the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act, 1881 that imposition of 20% of fine amount for deposition is not mandatory as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2741 of 2023 {@ SLP (CRL.) No(s). 4927 of 2023} 8. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 & 10 as under: "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." 9. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the very condition to get released, the petitioner should pay 20% of the fine amount, cannot be sustained. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned order invite modification in relation to the said condition. 10. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the very condition to get released, the petitioner should pay 20% of the fine amount, cannot be sustained. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned order invite modification in relation to the said condition. 10. In the present case, learned appellate Court has imposed mandatory condition for payment of 20% of fine amount against the petitioner for suspension of sentence imposed against him, whereas as per provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881, imposition of such condition is not mandatory, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) , therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition. The condition imposed by the appellate Court for payment of 20% of the fine amount is hereby set aside. However, the other conditions imposed by the learned appellate Court for suspension of sentence shall remain intact. 11. The respondent has right to file application under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court shall decide the said application on its own merits, as per law. 12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.