A
ST ANNY FELIX PINTO
v.
MIS. JANGID BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
~
JANUARY 15, 2001
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Section I 38.
Conviction under Section 138-lmposition of Sentence of imprisonment
c and fine-Suspension of sentence by High Court-While granting suspension
of sentence Court directed that part of fine shall be remitted in Court within
a reasonable time-Petition against said direction-Held direction given
was advisable and in .the interest of justice-Held direction was not unjust-
Held impugned order calls for no interference.
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
86 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2000 in CRL. RA 238/2000 of
the High Court of Bombay.
E
Shivaj i M. Jadhav for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
F
When a person was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine he moved the
superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while
entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a
condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time.
G
It is against tre said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view
the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel
that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Sec. 138 of the
),.
Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition
that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is
heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the
H convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency
390
STANNY FELIX PINTO v. MIS. JANGlD BUlLDERS PVT. LTD.
391
of the appeal. In this case the· grievance of the appellant is that he is required A·
by the High Court to remit a huge amount of Rupees four lacs as a condition
to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed
by the trial court (twenty lacs of Rupees) there is nothing unjust or
unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to
interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the B
respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex