Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 906

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Dr Reema Bodo Wife Of Hira Gogoi - Appellant
Vs.
Krisna Bayan Das Wife Of Pupajit Kr Das - Respondent
Crl.Pet. No. 682 of 2025
Decided On : 27-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Md. M H Choudhury, R. Baruah,Tanzim L. Choudhury,Mr. S N Ahmed,Mr. P Chakraborty,Mr Monzur K Choudhury,Ms. D J Borah
For the Respondent: Mr. S K Poddar, Ms. N Poddar

The requirement to deposit at least 20% of the compensation under the Act during an appeal is a mandatory rule. Waiver of this condition is limited to rare, exceptional cases where specific, justifiable reasons are recorded by the appellate court indicating perversity or fatal procedural errors in the conviction.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 148 - Dishonour of cheque - Suspension of sentence - Appellate court's power to direct deposit of minimum 20% of compensation - Term 'may' in section 148(1) is generally construed as a rule of mandatory deposit - Waiver of such condition is permissible only in exceptional and rare circumstances, provided the appellate court records specific reasons for such deviation. (Paras 17, 18, and 21)

(B) Appellate Court - Scope of interference - Appellate court is empowered to exercise restricted discretion to not order deposit only when the conviction appears palpably erroneous, based on inadmissible evidence, or delivered without necessary procedural compliance by the trial court. (Paras 21, 30, and 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, convicted for the offence of dishonour of a cheque, sought a suspension of sentence pending appeal. The appellate court stayed the conviction conditional upon the deposit of 20% of the awarded compensation amount. The petitioner challenged this condition, seeking a waiver and claiming the existence of exceptional circumstances, specifically alleging the absence of statutory notice and theft of the instrument.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court rightfully applied the statutory mandate for a 20% deposit. Upon reviewing the trial record, there was no evidence of procedural perversity, denial of admissible evidence, or manifest error that would qualify the case as an exceptional situation warranting a total waiver of the mandatory deposit.

Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in mandating a 20% deposit of the compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence, and whether the claim of the petitioner satisfied the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement for a minimum 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Act is a rule that serves the legislative intent of ensuring financial security for the payee and discouraging frivolous appeals. Discretion to waive this deposit is reserved for truly exceptional cases where the conviction is fundamentally flawed or perverse; absent such indicators, the condition remains mandatory.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background of appeal and stay order under ni act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions regarding necessity of 20% deposit for appeal (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for exempting deposit (Para 14 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. discretionary grounds for exemption from mandatory 20% deposit (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22)
5. dismissal of petition and enforcement of deposit order (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the sole respondent/ complainant.

2. The instant criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely Dr. Reema Bodo, invoking the provisions of Section 528 B.N.S.S., aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2025, which was filed against the said impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881).

3. By the said order, apart from admitting the appeal, the trial Court sentence was stayed, subject to the payment of 20% of the fine amount by the petitioner within a period of 60 days, in terms of Section 148 of the Act.

4. Before proceeding further, the brief facts may be noted. The sole respondent as complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the court of the learned C.J.M. Barpeta, alleging dishonor of cheque issued by the petitioner. The case was registered as N.I. Case No. 71 of 2018, which proceeded to the stage of trial during which the petitioner, the complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and the petitioner and his wife examined themselves as D.W-1 and D.W-2 respectively.

5. The respondent/complainant is stated to have developed friendship with the petitioner and her husband, and in course of the same, they sought a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant, which he gave to the petitioner in view of their friendly relation. Subsequently, towards repayment of the same, on 26.08.2018, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs via cheque No. 314680 drawn at her State Bank of India account at G.S. Road, Bhangagarh branch.

6. However, upon presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 28.08.2018. It was the further case of the complainant before the Learned Trial Court that subsequently on 12.09.2018, he sent a legal notice to the accused demanding repayment within 15 days and that the notice was sent by registered post and received by the accused on 17.09.2018. It was stated by the complainant that as the accused failed to pay the amount, he initiated the proceeding before the Learned Trial Court under Section 138 of the NI Act.

7. After completion of trial, the Court of the learned Additional C.J.M. Barpeta, vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2025, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs (in default to undergo S.I for 3 months).

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Trial Court, the petitioner as appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions C.J.M. Barpeta, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2025 and posted before the learned Additional C.J.M. Barpeta for disposal.

9. Vide order dated 20.05.2025, the appeal was admitted for hearing. However, on the prayer of the respondent/complainant, the impugned order of sentence was stayed, subject to the petitioner/ appellant depositing an amount of Rs.20% of the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court, in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the said amount was directed to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order.

10. In support of his prayer for interference with the said order directing deposit