Court affirmed that an appellate court may require a deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and petitioners must establish exceptional circumstances to waiver this mandate.

JUDGMENT :

JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1. This is an application challenging an order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2024 arising out of judgement dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta in C Case No. 74083 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted as follows. The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint case vide C Case No. 74083 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioners and another. On behalf of the complainant one Arunava Biswas deposed before the learned Trial Court by filing evidence-in-chief as PW 1 on 03.02.2022. The cross examination of PW 1 resumed on 30.03.2022. Further cross examination resumed on 08.09.2022. Subsequently, the petitioners, on 11.11.2022, filed an application under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as PW-1, Arunabha Biswas during his cross examination, was asked to produce agreement between Del Credere agency i.e. M/s Delhi Polymers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of which the complainant company had received the cheque. As such, production of the agreement was very essential for the present case. During hearing it was submitted by the complainant that it was the internal matter of the company with whom the company entered into agreement. It was also submitted that the documents as sought by the company was irrelevant and pressed for rejection of the petition. The said application was rejection by an order dated 19.04.2023 by observing, "It appears to this court that the complainant has filed this case against the accused company under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as such the duty is cast upon the complainant to prove their case with cogent documentary evidence. Accordingly, I do not find the documents as prayed by the accused company is necessary in the present facts and circumstances in this case." Therefore, the petitioners herein tried to bring the suppressed facts on record of the Learned Trial Court, but by rejecting the application dated 11.11.2022, the facts which were suppressed were completely buried. The complainant after dishonouring the cheque issued a notice under section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, to the petitioners, where also it failed to mention the nature of liability and such notice was replied by the petitioners where also categorically stated that the petitioners did not have any legal debts and/or liabilities. As such, the question of discharge of legal debt never arose at all. But, the Learned Trial Court despite the aforesaid facts convicted the petitioners and acquitted the accused no.3 by a judgement dated 07.09.2024. The accused no.3 namely, Rita Batra was the wife of the accused/ petitioner no.2 namely, Ashok Kumar Batra. The wife of the petitioner No.2 was suffering from cancer for long time. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Learned Chief Judge, City Session Court at Bichar Bhawan. Subsequently the matter was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 25.02.2025 and on the same date the respondent no.2/the complainant appeared before the Learned Appellate Court and filed hazira along with and application under section 148 of Negotiable Instrument act, praying, inter alia, to direct the appellant to deposit 50% of the compensation amount. During hearing on the point of admission the Learned Advocate for the Appellant made a prayer to file objection to the said application under section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, but the Learned Court without gran