ORDER :

Challenging the impugned orders dated 14.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.21, 22 and 23 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, respectively, whereby while suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, the appellate Court has ordered the revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “N.I. Act”), these Criminal Revision Cases are preferred by the revision petitioner.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent State.

3) The revision petitioner is the accused in three separate Calendar Cases in C.C.Nos.894, 888 and 889 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. The said criminal cases are filed against him by the 1st respondent complainants in these three Criminal Revision Cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the ground that the cheques that were issued by him for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability were dishonoured. The revision petitioner was prosecuted for the said offence and eventually he was found guilty for commission of the said offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in all the three cases and he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay compensation to the 1st respondent complainants in these Criminal Revision Cases.

4) Aggrieved thereby he has preferred three appeals in Crl.Appeal Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2022 to the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram. Alongside the appeals, he has filed three petitions under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed against him including the payment of compensation as ordered by the trial Court. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, by the impugned orders, dated 14.03.2022, ordered for suspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court and further ordered the revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court within 60 days from the date of the order in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act.

5) The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders pertaining to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court in terms of Section 148 of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the present Criminal Revision Cases are preferred questioning the legality and validity of the said orders whereby he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is not valid under law. According to him, the complaints were filed in the trial Court under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the year 2017 and the amendment by way of incorporating Section 148 of the N.I. Act to deposit 20% of the compensation amount when appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction, came in to effect in the year 2018 i.e. on 01.09.2018 and as such the said amendment has no application to the cases instituted prior to said amendment. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned orders to deposit 20% of the compensation amount are not valid under law. In other words he would contend that Section 148 of the N.I. Act has no retrospective effect and operates prospectively. So, it has no application to cases filed in trial Courts prior to the date on which the amendment came into force. He then contends that the order to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is too exorbitant and if at all this Court sustain the said orders, he would pray for reduction of the said compensation amount from 20% to either 15% or 10% of the compensation amount. He would submit that as the word “may” is used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, Court got discretion to reduce the amount.

7) Lear