JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 01.01.2022 passed by the learned 8th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha – Diyodar below Exh.4 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2022 to the extent of imposition of condition of depositing 20% amount of the cheque before the trial Court be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tushar K. Sheth for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent State.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter submitted that the complaint being Criminal Case No.1282 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the N.I. Act” for short) came to be filed by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhni. It is submitted that after conclusion of the trial, the concerned trial Court has convicted the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and thereby sentenced the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment and order dated 01.01.2022. It is submitted that against the said order of conviction, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2022 before the concerned Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has vide the impugned order passed below Exh.4 has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of the cheque within a period of 15 days before the concerned trial Court. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the relevant documents which are placed on record with the separate paper-book and after referring to the said documents and the depositions of the concerned witnesses recorded by the concerned trial Court, contended that though the complainant has failed to prove his case before the concerned trial Court, the present petitioner accused has been wrongly convicted by the concerned trial Court and, therefore, the petitioner is having a very good case on merits and therefore, he urged that the impugned order passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% amount of the cheque be quashed and set aside.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued the case of the petitioner on merits by contending that the concerned trial Court has wrongly convicted the present petitioner. In support of the said contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions.

(1) Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54

(2) Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513

(3) Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441

3.3 After referring to the aforesaid decisions, it is once again contended that the petitioner is having very good case on merits and the trial Court has wrongly convicted him and, therefore, it can be considered to be an exceptional circumstance, for which, this Court may exempt the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of the cheque as directed by the concerned appellate Court. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that this petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned APP has opposed this petition and mainly referred the provisions contained in Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Learned APP has referred the object and reasons for amending the aforesaid provisions by the Parliament and, thereafter, contended that the appellate Court is empowered to impose such condition. Learned APP further contended that this Court may not enter into the merits of the case of the petitioner because the case of the petitioner is yet to be examined by the appellate Court. It is further submitted that while considering the impugned order passed by the concerned appellate Court by which direction is given to the petitioner to