IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court must provide exceptional reasons when deciding not to impose the deposit requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; otherwise, the deposit is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 and Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 in both the petitions, which are taken on record.

2. Learned counsels for the contesting parties state that facts of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) No. 5955 of 2024 and Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) No. 5927 of 2024 are one and the same and that both the matters can be heard and decided together.

3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide both the matters together. For convenience, the facts of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5955 of 2024 are being taken into consideration.

4. Under challenge is the order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2024 in re: Mohd. Javed Farooqui vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the application, whereby upon an appeal filed by the applicant/petitioner, the learned court has required the appellant/applicant herein, to deposit 20% of the total fine imposed by the learned trial court within 30 days as a precondition for staying of the sentence and realization of fine.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned appellate court has patently erred in law in passing the order impugned dated 19.04.2024 to the extent it directs for deposit of 20% of the total fine.

6. The contention is that when from the merits of the case itself it emerges that no cheque had been issued by the applicant consequently there could not have been any occasion of conviction of the applicant and for that matter in the appeal filed by the applicant, there could not be any occasion for the appellate court to have directed for deposit of 20% of the total fine imposed by the trial court.

7. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2741 of 2023 decided on 04.09.2023.

8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that for the appellate court to direct the appellant to deposit a certain amount the exceptions should be spelt out per which the amount is required to be deposited. However, the order impugned dated 19.04.2024 passed by the appellate court does not spell out the exceptions which have prevailed on the appellate court per which it has directed the applicant to deposit 20% of the amount of fine and as such the order impugned merits to be set-aside on this ground alone apart from the order impugned reflecting patent non-application of mind to the relevant facts of the case.

9. On the other hand, Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA as well as Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, have supported the order impugned dated 19.04.2024 by contending that it is only in the exceptional circumstances that the amount as required to be deposited under the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1881) is not to be deposited keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) which aspect of the matter has been considered threadbare by the learned appellate court while passing the order impugned and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order.

10. In support of his argument, Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA has placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2024) 4 SCC 419 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering its earlier judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) has again considered the provi