Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeshwari Builders And Developers vs Anil Sharma on 21 December, 2016
MCRC-19455-2016
(RAJESHWARI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs ANIL SHARMA)
21-12-2016
Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on admission.
This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred seeking modification in the order dated 05/10/2016 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.788/2016 under section 389 of the Cr.P.C regarding suspension of sentence of conviction under section 138 of N.I Act with the condition of deposition of 20% of the compensation amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the condition imposed by the learned court regarding deposition of 20% of compensation amount is harsh and illegal, it amounts to deprive of the applicant exercising the right to appeal. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment dated 10/09/2009 of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court passed in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 1356/2009 (Amarveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors) in which direction regarding deposition of 50% of the fine amount was held unjustified and that direction was quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on judgment dated 10/04/2007 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 521/2007 (Dilip S Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd & anr) but in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down that the appellate court while suspending the sentence, was entitled to put the appellant on terms and appellant may be directed to pay compensation and compensation imposed should be reasonable sum. The Apex Court in the case of Stanny Felix Pinito Vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. & anr reported in (2001) 2 SCC 416 laid down that where trial court had sentenced the revisionist to imprisonment and imposed fine in a large sum of Rs.20 lacs, High Court's order requiring the accused revisionist to remit Rs.4 lakhs within a specified period as a condition to suspend the sentence, was held not unjust or unconscionable and suspension of sentence requiring revisionist to deposit part of fine is not improper.
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present case the condition about deposition of 20% of compensation amount is not improper or unjustified, hence this petition is meritless and accordingly dismissed.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarun