1. Challenge to order directing deposit of 20% of compensation under Section 148 NI Act pending appeal against conviction for cheque dishonour. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14735
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Pranjal Das, J
Dr. Reema Bodo – Appellant
Versus
Puspajit Kr Das – Respondent
Crl.Pet./683/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MD. M H CHOUDHURY, R. BARUAH, TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY, S N AHMED, P CHAKRABORTY, MONZUR K CHOUDHURY, D J BORAH
For the Respondents: S K PODDAR, N PODDAR
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MD. M H CHOUDHURY, R. BARUAH, TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY, S N AHMED, P CHAKRABORTY, MONZUR K CHOUDHURY, D J BORAH
For the Respondents: S K PODDAR, N PODDAR
Section 148 of the NI Act mandates a minimum 20% deposit of the fine or compensation during an appeal against conviction under Section 138, unless "exceptional circumstances" (such as a perverse conviction or egregious procedural errors) are recorded by the court to justify a waiver.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 148 - B.N.S.S. - Section 528 - Appeal against conviction - Mandatory nature of deposit under Section 148 - Deposit of minimum 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is generally mandatory - The word "may" in Section 148 is construed as a rule, and a departure is permissible only in "exceptional circumstances" - Exceptional circumstances include cases where the conviction is perverse, mandatory procedural requirements were not followed, evidence was rejected or inadmissible evidence was relied upon, or compensation awarded is excessive and outrageous (Paras 15-22).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. Upon filing an appeal, the Appellate Court stayed the sentence subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days, in accordance with Section 148 of the NI Act. The petitioner challenged this order, claiming that the statutory demand notice was not properly sent, the cheques were stolen by the complainant's brother, and these facts constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver of the deposit.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court had already observed that the demand notice was sent to the correct address and the petitioner's residential and official addresses were identical. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to initiate any criminal proceedings regarding the alleged theft of the cheques. The court concluded that none of the illustrative exceptional circumstances listed in Muskan Enterprises apply to the present case.
Issues: Whether the facts of the case satisfy the "exceptional circumstances" required to waive the mandatory minimum 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for a 20% deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act is the general rule and can only be deviated from in rare, exceptional cases where the order of conviction is clearly perverse or fundamentally flawed; since no such evidence was presented, the deposit condition is sustainable.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no proper notice and cheque stolen; respondent argued proper notice and no exceptional circumstances for waiver. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The appellate court's direction to deposit 20% of compensation under Section 148 NI Act is mandatory unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not established. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. Under Section 148 NI Act, the appellate court may order minimum 20% deposit; it is mandatory as a rule, but exceptional circumstances may allow waiver. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 )
5. Criminal petition dismissed; petitioner must pay the 20% deposit immediately, failing which coercive measures may be taken. (Para 31 , 33 , 34 )
6. Is the direction to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act mandatory or discretionary?
The provision uses 'may' but is to be construed as a rule, making deposit mandatory unless exceptional circumstances exist. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 )
7. What constitutes exceptional circumstances for waiving the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148?
Illustrative circumstances include conviction without mandatory procedural requirements, perverse order, rejection of admissible evidence, or excessive compensation. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. Did the petitioner establish exceptional circumstances to avoid the 20% deposit?
No, the court found none of the illustrative circumstances present and upheld the deposit order. (Para 23 , 29 , 30 )
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
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. 34 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. 72 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, D.W-2 and D.W-3 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. 10 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. 314679 drawn at her State Bank of India account at Gauhati Medical College, Bhangagarh branch.
6. However, upon presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured on 29.08.2018, due to drawers’ signature mismatch. 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.34 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 equivalent to 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 of 50% of the fine amount, Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no statutory notice as required by law was sent to the other side and that any such notice was not sent to the proper address of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the cheques were stolen by the broth
