The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court has the power to dispense with the deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount if an exceptional case is made out, as provided in Section 148 of the NI Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri Arup Kumar Sharma.

2. The petitioner has filed this application under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No. 1), Margherita in Criminal Appeal No. 7(4)/2023, whereby, while admitting the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1) held that the order for suspension of the operation of the sentence passed vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2023 by the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (M), Margherita in NI Case No. 12/2018, shall be passed subject to deposit of minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation within 30 days from the date of the order.

3. The genesis of the case is that the complainant/respondent herein is the proprietor of Agbandha Agro Product and the petitioner operated a venture specializing in Britannia Distribution under the name and style of M/S Sangeeta Agency. In order to bolster the business of the petitioner an investment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs) was sought from the respondent and the respondent provided a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs) to the petitioner. Thereafter, a legally registered agreement was formally executed between the complainant/Respondent and the petitioner under various terms and conditions. The petitioner failed to fulfill his obligation in repaying the principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs) and the dividend of Rs.4,80,000/- (Four Lacs Eighty Thousand) to the respondent and then they again entered into a mutual agreement pertaining to the outstanding debt. Thereafter, for settlement of a part of the outstanding debt, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 110931 for Rs.4,80,000/- (Four Lacs Eighty Thousand) dated 28.05.2018 to the proprietorship firm of the respondent. This cheque was presented, but was returned with an endorsement ‘stopped by drawer’. Thereafter, a corresponding complaint case was initiated against the petitioner.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is every possibility that the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 12.09.2023 in NI Case No. 12/2018 would be set aside, but the petitioner is in a predicament as he is directed to pay 20% of the compensation amount vide the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The case was initiated by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and contested the proceeding by examining one witness and exhibiting 8 documents. During the course of trial, the agreement dated 27.06.2016 executed between the petitioner and the respondent was exhibited as Exhibit 10, where the petitioner was required to pay the amount borrowed by the petitioner to the complainant in three installments i.e. in the month of July, 2016, October, 2016 and April, 2017 and accordingly, the petitioner issued four post-dated cheques.

5. It is stated that the learned trial Court however ignored the submission of the petitioner and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (The NI Act, 1881, for short).

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 7(4)/2023 and the respondent filed a petition for issuing a direction to the petitioner to deposit the minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount, against which the petitioner prayed for waiver of payment of 20% of the said compensation amount. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties on the point of waiver of minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court admitted the appeal vide order dated 21.11.2023 and held that the order of suspension of the operation of the sentence passed vide