IMPORTANT POINT
The imposition of a 20% deposit under Section 148 of the N.I. Act is customary but not obligatory; exceptions can be made if justified.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) impugns the order dated 15.07.2024 of learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.54 of 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State. Notice was served on respondent No.1/complainant but none entered appearance.

3. On a complaint lodged by respondent No.1 herein alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) said to have been committed by the present revision petitioner, learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam tried the case in C.C.No.262 of 2020 and finally by judgment dated 19.06.2024 found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced her in the following terms :

“Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months apart from paying a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) being the cheque amount covered by Ex.P.1 under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of this judgment, and in default of payment of compensation, as was ordered, she shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.”

4. Aggrieved by that, the convict preferred Crl.A.No.54 of 2024 before the learned Sessions Judge. The convict also preferred an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2024. After due hearing by a detailed order dated 15.07.2024 the learned appellate Court allowed that petition in the following terms :

“In the result, the petition is allowed suspending the sentence imposed for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam in C.C.No.262 of 2020, dt.19.06.2024 till disposal of the main Crl.A.No.54 of 2024 on condition of depositing 20% (twenty percent) of awarded compensation amount in the trial Court within one month from the date of this order and also on execution of personal bond by the petitioner/appellant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trying Prohibition and Excise Offences, Machilipatnam. On failure to comply the conditions this order stands revoked and the trial Court shall take steps to serve out the sentence imposed by it.”

5. Aggrieved by that, the convict preferred this revision.

6. Learned counsel submits that the direction of the learned appellate Court to the extent of directing this revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount is incorrect and illegal and requires interference. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776.

7. Learned counsel further submits that a learned Judge of this Court in Engamuri Ramya v. Smt. Pandiri Sarada Kamal, Crl.P.No.4324 of 2024 order dated 11.07.2024 set aside such orders which are akin to the order impugned here and remanded the petition to the appellate Court for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The further submission of the learned counsel is with reference to certain financial difficulties and ill-health of petitioner’s son which is not made part of the grounds in the revision.

8. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction this Court could only address as to whether the order impugned is illegal or improper. On considering the material on record and the ruling cited by the petitioner and the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, the following aspects are to be stated:

The revision petitioner was found guilty and was convicted by the trial Court and she impugned the same before the learned Sessions Judge