IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the appellate court has discretion under Section 148 of the N.I. Act to waive the 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases, emphasizing the need for recorded reasons.

ORDER :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2.

2. By way of the above Revision Applications, the common applicant-revisionist has challenged the order/s dated 03.05.2024 passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 293 of 2024 and 294 of 2024 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant-revisionist Mr. Anand B. Gogia has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2023) 10 SCC 446 and submitted that exceptional cases were brought to the notice of the Court to state that there was no necessity for the learned Trial Court to even order the deposit of 20% of fine and compensation amount before the Nazir of the learned District Court.

4. It is further submitted that the order of the learned trial Court is to effect to pay the cheque amount as compensation within one month of the order and in default, to suffer six months simple imprisonment. It is further submitted that the present revisionist has been sentenced to one year and six months simple imprisonment for the offence as noted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the N.I. Act’).

5. It is also submitted that the decision of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) clarifies that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and if a case is made out before the learned Appellate Court and if considered as an exceptional case, the learned Appellate Court is not bound to pass any order of 20% deposit of money. It is further submitted that such order if could be found is unjust and imposing such conditions would amount to deprivation of the right to Appeal of the applicant, exception could be made by the reasons which should be specifically recorded.

6. It is also submitted that it has been brought to the notice of the learned Appellate Court that the complainant is dealing in finance. Further telephonic conversation and evidence on record reveals that the brothers are dealing under Yadav Finance Limited and are lending money to people on a higher rate of interest. It is further submitted that the evidence on record was noted at Exhibit 56 of the payment of money and against an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-, Rs.35,00,000/- has been recovered from the present revisionist and when the applicant had gone for collecting the cheque, he was threatened to pay the money which complainant had given on assurance of revisionist to Sunil and Jatin. It is also submitted that it is a total case of extortion which has been brought on record. During the course of cross examination, the Bank Pass Book and Income Tax returns were asked for to verify the financial status and the ability of lending money, of the complainant, but he had refused to produce the same. It is further submitted that the defence has been raised before the learned trial Court, but inspite of that, the sentence followed. The said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Appellate Court, where aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Appeal has been preferred. It is also submitted that exceptional case was pleaded, inspite of that the order of deposit of 20% of fine and compensation amount has been ordered.

7. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate for the complainant Mr. Ashish M. Dagli submitted that as per the evidence produced on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused and in support of the facts brought to the notice of the learned Appellate Court, the order has been passed of deposit of 20% amount which is only after consideration of the case from both the sides. It is further submitted that the order is legal and justifiable since the Appeal would take its own time an