The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court cannot pass an order directing the appellant-accused to deposit any sum less than twenty percent of the fine or compensation amount pending disposal of appeal, as per the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. This is an application filed by the petitioner Sridev Kumar Muduli for quashing the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur Road in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2019 in directing the petitioner to deposit one-fourth of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court as a condition precedent for being released on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

4. As it appears, the petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Jajpur Road in I.C.C. Case No.190 of 2016 for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter 'N.I. Act') and he was found guilty of such offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a further direction to pay a compensation amount of Rs.47,70,000/- (forty seven lakh seventy thousand) to the opposite party, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. The judgment and order of conviction was challenged by the petitioner before the learned appellate Court and as per impugned order dated 01.10.2019, the learned appellate Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal subject to condition to deposit one-fourth of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court under section 148 of the N.I. Act i.e. amounting to Rs. 11,92,500/- (rupees eleven lakhs ninety two thousand five hundred only) before the Judge-in-charge Account, Jajpur Road within one month from the date of passing of the order.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of deposit of one-fourth of the compensation amount by the learned appellate Court is palpably wrong and in exceptional circumstances, the amount can be reduced.

7. Mr. Budhia, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that the learned trial Court has awarded a meager compensation amount and even the learned counsel for the appellant made a submission before the appellate Court to deposit minimum twenty percent of the compensation amount and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the appellate Court

8. Section 148 of the N.I. Act is extracted herein below:-

"148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:

Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143-A.

(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.

(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:

Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant."

9. Interpreting the said provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal -Vrs.- Virender Gandhi reported in (2019