Appellate courts must specify reasons when imposing deposit conditions under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially when considering exceptional circumstances for suspension of sentence.

ORDER:

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.554 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2024 on the file of learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. Heard Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Sessions Judge in the appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act passed the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.554 of 2024 under Section 430 (1) of BNSS 2023, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, as ordered by the learned Trial Judge within 60 days from the date of the order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He would further submit that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd' s case.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the state and would submit that the Appellate Court has power to order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount awarded by the trial court in an appeal against the conviction u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. In a recent judgment Of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another , observed that the Appellate Court has discretion not to order the deposit of 20% of the amount under section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional cases. The learned Sessions Judge -In the Order did not specify how the present case would not fall under the category of appropriate and exceptional cases.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner Was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate Sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and ordered him to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) as compensation. The petitioner/accused Subsequently filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development corporation Ltd., & Ors., referred above, the Honlble Apex Court held that when an accused applies under Section 389 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Cr.P.C.) for the suspension of sentence, they typically seek the grant of relief without any conditions. Therefore, when the appellants sought a blanket order, the Court had to determine whether the case fell under an exception. Consequently, when an application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence, it is presumed that the appellant is seeking suspension without any conditions. The Court's duty is to ascertain whether the case falls under an exception or not, to impose conditions as prescribed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

7. This Court after following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others , 2019 (11) SCC 341 , Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776, Muskan Enterprises and another versus the State of Punjab and another , 2024 INSC 1046, and reported judgment of this court in Crl.P.No.5914 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024, held that, normally, the Appellate Court will be justified