IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons for exercising its discretion when ordering payment pending appeal against conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal petition under Sec. 482 CrPC is filed to quash the order, dtd. 27/3/2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.22 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, at Nellore.

2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant.

3. The facts leading to filing of the petition, are briefly as follows:

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.402 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, filed by the 1st respondent herein under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Pending the case, the accused filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2022 to send exhibits P1 to P5, cheques, to a handwriting expert for opinion. The petition was dismissed by order, dtd. 16/12/2022. Aggrieved by the order, the accused preferred criminal revision in C.R.P.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. The petition was dismissed on 20/2/2023.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, criminal petition in Crl. Petition No.1504 of 2023 was filed before this Court. An interim order was passed by this Court on 27/2/2023 granting stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court in C.C.No.402 of 2017 for a period of eight (8) weeks. According to the petitioner/accused, the said order was informed to the trial Court and a memo was filed on 1/3/2023 along with 'online daily status information' which indicated in column of 'Short Order' - 01 Notice stay'. On the said memo, the trial Court passed an order on 1/3/2023 which reads as follows:

"Heard both sides. Perused the record. The matter in C.C.No.402/2017 was posted for judgment on 25/1/2023, but this Court received official memo on 24/1/2023 from the Hon'ble IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Nellore asked entire record in Crl.M.P.No.135/2022 in this case. Hence, this Court not pronounced judgment and posted time to time. Finally, this Court received record on 27/2/2023 and posted today for judgment as the matter is of 2017. On perusing the memo filed by the petitioner/accused that he preferred revision, but no stay granted by Hon'ble High Court of A.P., hence this Court felt that it is not necessary to stop the proceedings and inclined to go further. Accordingly, the memo is closed/ answered in the interest of justice."

5. In spite of information regarding the stay granted by this Court, the trial Court pronounced the judgment on 1/3/2023 by convicting the petitioner. Hence, the accused preferred an appeal, vide Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2023 along with which he also filed Crl.M.P.No.22 of 2023 seeking to suspend the operation of the sentence imposed in C.C.No.402 of 2017. The appellate Court, vide order dtd. 27/3/2023, suspended the operation of the sentence alone subject to condition of depositing 20% of Rs.70, 00, 000.00 on or before 27/4/2023.

6. Aggrieved by the condition to deposit 20% of the amount, the petitioner/accused filed this petition contending that the said condition is onerous and it ought not to have been ordered.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted mainly that the condition to deposit is not mandatory and is discretionary as can be seen from the language of Sec. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is only if the Court decides to impose such condition, the minimum amount to be ordered for deposit is 20%, but the appellate Court failed to exercise its discretion in the light of the facts and circumstances in this case, because the judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable in view of the order of stay granted by this Court.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that a judgment passed in the absence of communication of the order of stay is valid and placed reliance on the decision in Seva Singh Vs. State, [1953] THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS 206. He