-------- This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.389 of 2014 Sessions court, Kozhikode challenging the condition in Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2014 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in ST.No.905 of 2012 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram which was taken on file on the basis of private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After evidence the trial court found the petitioner guilty under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted her thereunder and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and also to pay `.37,779/- (Rupees. Thirty seven thousand seven hundred and seventy nine only) in default undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl.Appeal No.389 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and also filed Crl.M.C.No.2020 of 2014 for suspension sentence. The learned Sessions Judge suspended the sentence with condition inter alia to deposit `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) within 30 days and that condition is being challenged by the petitioner before this court. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:-
i) Call for the records leading up to Annexure-2 order dated 20.6.2004, in Crl.M.P. No.2020 of 2014 in Crl.Appeal No.389 of 2014 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode Division and set aside the condition for deposit of `.20,000/- contained in Annexure 2 order.
ii) Grant such other reliefs which this court may deem fit and necessary to grant in the circumstances of the case.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition imposed by the court below is unsustainable and she is disputing the liability itself.
5. The application was opposed by the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the accused in ST.No.905 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram which was taken on file on the basis of private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by that court against which she filed Crl.Appeal 389 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and also moved Crl.M.C.2020 of 2014 for suspension of sentence and the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which reads as follows:-
Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the documents. The impugned sentence is suspended on his executing a bond for `.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned and also on depositing an amount of `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) before the trial court within 30 days from today.
7. It is true that the court has got power to impose conditions while granting bail or suspending sentence. But this court has in several decisions deprecated the practice of cash deposit being imposed for releasing on bail as poverty of a persons should not be a ground for denying bail. In this case, the petitioner had challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and so the condition directing the petitioner to deposit the amount appears to be unsustainable. So the condition directing the petitioner to deposit `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) within one month is set aside. The sentence will be suspended on executing a bond for `.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court alone.
With the above modification of the condition, the petition is disposed of. Communicate this order to the Court below at the earliest.
sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV