##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5082

CRL.P No. 973 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 973 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

H. SANTHOSH KUMAR

S/O S. HARISH CHANDRA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT 17, 9TH E MAIN ROAD,

BAIRAWESHWARA NAGAR,

BENGALURU NORTH,

NAGARABHAVI,

BENGALURU - 560 072.

Digitally signed

by

…PETITIONER

SANJEEVINI J

KARISHETTY

Location: High

(BY SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)

Court of

Karnataka

AND:

DR. RAMESH PAI

(DR.RAMESH PAI SHRINGERI)

S/O VARADARAJ PAI SHRINGERI,

NOW AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5082

CRL.P No. 973 of 2026

HC-KAR

R/AT DEVASHISH,

LAKSHMINDRA NAGAR,

6TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR,

2ND PHASE, 15TH CROSS,

GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH,

HOSAKEREHALLI,

BENGALURU - 560 085.

REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY

HOLDER K.ANANTHESHWARA SHENOY

S/O SRI. VASANTH SHENOY

NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/AT FLAT NO.202, VITTAL TOWERSM,

NEAR OLD TALUK OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 101.

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF

CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025

PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-73) BENGALURU DIRECTING THE

PETITIONER HEREIN TO DEPOSIT 10 PERCENT OF THE CHEQUE

AMOUNT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5082

CRL.P No. 973 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling question an

order of the concerned Court dated 23.10.2025 passed in

Crl.A.No.25368/2025.

2. Heard Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on

record.

3. The petitioner is the accused gets convicted of an

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and prefers an appeal in

Crl.A.No.25368/2025.

4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of

the matter. The concerned Court suspends the sentence subject

to the condition that the petitioner would deposit 10% of the

amount. The order of the concerned court reads as follows:

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5082

CRL.P No. 973 of 2026

HC-KAR

"ORDER

Acting U/Sec.389(10 of Cr.P.C., the execution and

operation of the Judgment passed by the XVII ACMM,

Bengaluru, in C.C.No.59530/2018 dtd. 22.9.2025 is

hereby stayed for a period of 3 months, subject to

Appellant depositing 10% of the cheque amount before

the Trial Court, within 8 weeks from today. In case of

default on the part of the Appellant to deposit the 10% of

the cheque amount, this order stands cancelled.

The Appellant shall execute personal bond for a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and surety for the like sum, to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court, within 4 weeks.

Regarding prayer made in IA.No.2/2025 is

concerned, before passing any order of IA.No.2/2025,

hearing on behalf of the Respondent is necessary.

Issue notice of appeal memo and Notice on

IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and the Notice on Interim

Order passed on IA.No.1/2025 to the Respondent through

court and Speed Post, if PF is paid and correct address

furnished by the Appellant, returnable by : 27.11.2025."

5. The concerned Court, though records that

considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

case of JAMBOO BHANDARI v. M.P. SIDC Ltd.,, (2023) 10 SCC 446 the order of

10% is made, while there is no reason indicated in the order as

is necessary in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI (supra). The

Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI (supra), has

held as follows:

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5082

CRL.P No. 973 of 2026

HC-KAR

"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive

interpretation should be made of Section 148 NI Act.

Hence, normally, the appellate court will be justified

in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in

Section 148. However, in a case where the appellate

court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20%

will be unjust or imposing such a condition will

amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document