O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein referred to as `Cr.P.C’ for short) challenging Annexure.A7 order in Crl.M.P.No.882/2020 in Crl.Appeal No.83/2020 and Annexure.A8 order in Crl.M.P.No.1090/2020 in Crl.Appeal No.83/2020 pending before the Sessions Court, Manjeri.

The petitioner is the appellant in the above Crl.M.Ps.

2. As per the Annexure.A7 order, the learned Sessions Judge while suspending the sentence imposed by the trial court in S.T.No.60/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Ponnani, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as compensation. Thereafter, as per Annexure.A8 order, the Sessions Judge extended the time for remitting the amount.

3. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has approached this Court, for a direction to quash Annexure.A7 and A8 orders in Crl.M.P.No.882/2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1090/2020 in Crl.App.No.83/2020 on the file of Sessions Court, Manjeri.

4. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Apex Court in [2019 (3) KHC 355 : 2019 (2) KLD 1 : 2019 (2) KLT 985 : ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 713 : 2019 (2) KLJ 983 : 2019 (8) SCALE 445 : AIR 2019 SC 2956 : 2019 CriLJ 3507 : 2029 (11) SCC 341], Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi holding the view that the word `may' used in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as `N.I Act' for convenience) to be construed as a `rule' or `shall', is not good law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out other decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [(2007) 6 SCC 528], Dilip S.Dhanukar v. Kotak Mahindra; [2015 (1) KLT Suppl.114 (SC)], Vediocon International Ltd v. SEBI of India; [(1994) 4 SCC 602], Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra; [AIR 1970 SC 1636], Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar; [(1979) 1 SCC 92], Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v.

Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto; [(1976) 2 SCC 917], Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim; [AIR 1995 SC 1012], K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala; [1957 SCR 488], Garikapati Veeraya v. N.Subbiah Choudhry; [AIR 2001 SC 2472], Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & anr.; [(1963) 3 SCR 884], Amir Singh & anr. v. Ram Singh & Ors. to substantiate this point.

6. In fact, this contention cannot be considered by this Court and this Court is bound under Article 141 of the Constitution of India to follow the ratio of the Apex Court dealing with the matter in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal & Ors. v. Virender Gandhi (supra). Therefore, this challenge is found to be meritless and is accordingly dispelled.

7. This Court also followed the said ratio in a decision reported in [2020 (1) Crimes(HC) 582], Thomas v. State of Kerala & anr.

8. The legal position is not in dispute that as per the statutory mandate under Section 148 of the N.I Act, in an appeal filed against conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act, the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine amount or compensation awarded by the trial court. It is provided that the amount payable under sub section (1) of Section 148 of the N.I Act, shall be paid by the accused under Section 143-A of the N.I Act.

9. In view of the legal question, nothing substantiated to interfere the order impugned, whereby the Appellate Court directed deposit of 20% of the cheque amount at the time of admitting the appeal. Therefore, the orders impugned cannot be interfered for any reason.

Therefore, the orders impugned shall sustain.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought one month time to effect the deposit, highlighting the difficulties of the petitioner. Taking note of the said facts, I am inclined to grant one month time from today to deposit the amount as per the order impugned, before the trial court.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

SK/16.11.

APPENDIX OF