[2025:RJ-JP:24749] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.122/2025 IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.581/2025 1. Neelesh Rawat S/o Shri Sitaram Ji Rawat, Proprietor Rawat Enterprises National Kirana Store, Factory Area Road, Near Police Station Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) 2. Rawat Enterprises, Proprietor Neelesh Rawat, National Kirana Store Factory Area Road, Near Police Station Jhotwara Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Rajendra Kumar Mamodiya S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Lal Mamodiya, R/o Dwarikapuri Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deven Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 04/07/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.294/2022 (483/2013, 3180/2012), whereby, the accused- petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo two years of simple imprisonment (SI) along with fine of [2025:RJ-JP:24749] (2 of 3) [SOSR-122/2025 in CRLR-581/2025] Rs.10,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month of SI. An appeal was preferred by the accused against the said order which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court while affirming/modifying the order of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner No.1 was on bail during the trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and presently he is behind the bars and his financial position is not sound. However, he is ready to deposit the amount as may be ordered by this Court. I have perused the relevant provisions of law. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that in an appeal by drawer against conviction under Section 138, the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the learned trial Court. Thus, it is clear that in appropriate cases, this amount can be more than 20%. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application for suspension of sentence is allowed. The sentence of accused-applicants namely, 1.Neelesh Rawat S/o Shri Sitaram Ji Rawat & 2.Rawat Enterprises, Proprietor Neelesh Rawat is suspended till final disposal of the revision petition, provided petitioner No.1 deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of Demand Draft in the name of complainant in the learned trial Court and shall also furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court [2025:RJ-JP:24749] (3 of 3) [SOSR-122/2025 in CRLR-581/2025] with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 05th August, 2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so. It is also ordered that the original Demand Draft shall be delivered to the complainant subject to an undertaking to be furnished by the complainant in the learned trial court to the effect that in case the revision petition is decided against him, he will refund the aforesaid amount along with interest @7% per annum. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DANISH USMANI /77