The court established that appellate courts generally must provide reasons for imposing pre-deposit conditions unless justified by exceptional circumstances, reflecting the need to prevent unjust delays in proceedings.

Judgment :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. O. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. The crux of the present criminal petition is the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2024 by which the appellant herein was directed to pay 20% of the total compensation amount as quantified in the judgment & order dated 15.02.2024 passed in C.R Case No. 1302/2016 in the proper Government Head, through the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and thereafter to submit deposit receipts. The execution of the judgment of the Court of first instance was kept in abeyance till 25.04.2024.

3. The concerned appeal arises out of the judgment & order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in C.R Case No. 1302/2016. This Court has noticed that the trial proceeded for a period of nearly 8 years from the date it was instituted. This Court has been informed by the counsels in tandem that even though no interim orders had been passed in this criminal petition, due to its pendency, the appeal has not yet proceeded with the Appellate Court respecting the pendency of the litigation before this Court.

4. Mr. O. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 is liable to be interfered with by this Court to the extent that the appellant/accused was directed to pay 20% of the total compensation amount as passed in the judgment & order dated 15.02.2024, since no reason has been given as to why the learned Appellate Court had come to a conclusion that it was necessary for the appellant to have deposited 20% of the compensation amount prior to the appeal being taken up for consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment and order dated 21.3.2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC no 1077/2024 (P Sreenevasan versus Sini Shelly) reported in 2024 SCC Online Ker 1361, to emphasize that the Courts have time and again emphasized that the the appellate Court would be legally obliged to furnish reasons for its decisions either requiring the payment of 20% of the compensation or fine awarded by the trial court or to waive such deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the absence of any such reason being discernible in the impugned order, it would deserve an interference to such extent.

6. Mr. N. Kothari, learned counsel for the sole respondent has on the other hand, drawn the attention of this Court to the case of Jamboo Bhandari -versus- Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446, where the Apex Court has held as under;

“6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in . However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.”

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reasons are to be given by the Appellate Court only when a relaxation is given for the imposition of the condition of pre deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is granted by the appellate court and no reasons are required to be given when the appellate court proceeds to impose the pre deposit 20% as a pre-condition to proceed further in the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 87/2019, which was disposed of on 13.05.2020, wherein the Court had framed the following questions;

“2. The petitioner in this criminal petition filed