High Court deems 25% cheque deposit condition unreasonable. Fair trial rights upheld.

The High Court held that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court, requiring the petitioner to deposit 25% of the cheque amount while suspending the sentence, was unreasonable and harsh. The Court emphasized the need for conditions to be fair and practical, ensuring that the accused can comply without facing undue hardship. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders passed by the Sessions Court imposing the said condition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of condition to deposit 25% of the cheque amount while suspending the substantive order of sentence.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order passed by the Sessions Court, Mehsana, which imposed a condition on the petitioner to deposit 25% of the cheque amount while suspending the sentence. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was ordered to undergo imprisonment and pay a fine. The petitioner argued that the condition imposed by the appellate court was too harsh as it amounted to Rs. 2,65,000, which was beyond the fine amount. The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments to support the contention that such conditions should be reasonable and not result in imprisonment due to non-compliance.

The respondent, the original complainant, defended the imposition of the condition, stating that it was within the appellate court's power to ensure justice. The Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted arguments in favor of the condition.

Upon considering the arguments and relevant legal provisions, the High Court opined that the Sessions Court erred in imposing the condition to deposit 25% of the cheque amount. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the statutory right of the accused to appeal and the need for conditions to be reasonable. The Court noted that the condition imposed was harsh, especially considering the petitioner's financial inability to comply.

Citing another Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that conditions imposed while releasing a convict on bail should be reasonable and not defeat the purpose of the bail order. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders passed by the Sessions Court imposing the condition to deposit 25% of the cheque amount.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court was unreasonable and harsh, leading to the quashing of the said condition. The judgment emphasized the need for conditions to be fair and practical, ensuring that the accused can comply without facing undue hardship.

---