Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO Date:

RAO 2026.03.23

14:56:07 +0530

2026:CGHC:13351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 711 of 2026 Smt. Madhuri Indira Rao D/o Shri Mahesh Rao Aged About 58 Years R/o- 21/493, Opposite Bungalow of District and Session Court, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Vyas Pathak S/o Shri Kranti Kumar Pathak Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Navagaon, Post Pandatari, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : …..

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

19/03/2026

1 Heard.

2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2026 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge to Court of Sessions Judge, Kawardha District – Kabirdham (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for exemption to deposit 20% of the compensation passed in the bail order dated 01.01.2026 , whereby the petitioner was directed to produce bail bond of like some amount of rs. 20,000/- and also deposit 20% (8,00,000/-) of the fine/compensation amount.

3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced in the case passed the judgment dated 01.01.2026 and convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a compensation/fine of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.01.2026 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court along with an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of order dated 01.01.2026 which got allowed on 31.01.2026 with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount within stipulated period prescribed under Section 143-A(3) of the Act while suspending the execution of the order dated 01.01.2026.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 20% deposit rule under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an "absolute rule" and can be relaxed in exceptional cases. He submits that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any reason for the same. The learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 01.01.2026 Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for exemption to deposit the same amount of Rs. 8 lakhs, but the same has been rejected. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed.

6 Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently incorporated to the N.I. Act vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 20 of 2018), the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

1["148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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………"

(2)….. (3)…..

Provided that …...]

7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industr