directed for deposit of fine or part of fine.” Thus, while convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction can be suspended in the exercise of power under sub­section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC. 7. Coming back to the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned therein that the respondent's sentence stands suspended pending the hearing of the appeal subject to compliance of furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the High Court was conscious of the fact that as the embezzlement alleged against the respondent and other accused persons was to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/­, the Special Court had sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.95,00,000/­. The order notes that the sentence imposed on the respondent was of both imprisonment and payment of fine. Therefore, on a plain reading of the impugned order, the argument of learned ASG that the sentence of the fine was not suspended cannot be