The requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to deposit 20% of the fine for suspension of sentence is not an absolute rule. Appellate courts must exercise discretion to determine if a case warrants an exception, recording reasons where the condition is found to be unjust.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2025 MADE ON IA NO.NIL, ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, IN CRI.APL.NO.1636/2025, ON THE FILE OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, (CCH -68).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 09.12.2025, which rejects an application filed by the complainant seeking modification of the order and directing deposit of 20% of the fine amount, which would amount to Rs.10,00,000/-, owing to the backdrop of the situation. The petitioner is the accused. The respondent is the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads to the accused issuing certain cheques in favour of the complainant. The cheques have been dishonoured, the complainant institutes proceedings invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI' Act for short).

2. The petitioner gets convicted of the offence, files an appeal against the conviction. While filing the appeal had deposited 20% of the fine amount that was determined by the trial Court in terms of the order of conviction on 06.01.2025. The First Appellate Court after the said deposit notices procedural lacunae in the order passed by the concerned Court and remits the matter back to the hands of the trial Court for a reconsideration of the issue on its merit all over again. The reconsideration turns worse off to the present petitioner, as the fine amount is now doubled from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner again approaches the First Appellate Court challenging the order of conviction dated 26.09.2025. The respondent/complainant now files an application that he should deposit 20% of the amount that is newly determined on the remand proceedings i.e., Rs.50,00,000/-, the fine amount and 20% being Rs.10,00,000/-. The said order which direct deposit of 20% of the fine amount, which is now determined at Rs.10,00,000/- is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri. Manu N.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in fact deposited 20% diligently at the first instance, when the appeal was preferred against conviction. In the second instance, this fine is doubled. Therefore, he sought indulgence at the hands of the concerned Court to dispense with deposit of 20% of the doubled fine amount in the second proceeding and the complainant files an application seeking deposit of the said 20% of the fine amount and that is accepted. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the concerned Court is bereft of reasons without considering the fact that there was an earlier deposit.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the issue is the following of the mandate of the statute. Under Section 148 of the NI Act, it is the mandate that 20% of the fine amount or compensation determined by the concerned Court is imperative. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts, dates linked in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The f