The Appellate Court must provide justification for requiring a deposit of fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure-A1 common judgment passed by the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Trial Court’, in short) in C.C.No.316/2019, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for allegedly committing the offence punishable under of the , 1881 (Act’, for brevity), the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.113/2025 before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Appellate Court’, for short). Along with the appeal, the petitioners also filed Crl. M.P.No.2485/2025 to suspend the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on them. By Annexure A3 order, the Appellate Court suspended the execution of the sentence till the disposal of the appeal, subject to the condition that the 1^st petitioner executes a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties and deposits 20% of the fine amount. Annexure A3 order is erroneous and improper and is against the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court inHarihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas ( 2017 (4) KHC 699 ),Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh ( 2024 (5) KHC 121 ),Bijay Agarwal v. M/s.Medilines ( 2025 (1) KHC 371 ) and Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , [(2023) 10 SCC 446] . The Appellate Court has failed to consider the crucial point that the liability under of the Act lies only on the drawer. The cheques in question were drawn on the account of the 2^nd petitioner company, and not on the personal account of the 1^st petitioner. Therefore, Annexure A3 order may be quashed.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the 2^nd respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that as the 1^st petitioner is only the Managing Director of the 2^nd petitioner company, he cannot be saddled with the liability to pay 20% of the fine amount as per the impugned order. Only the 2^nd petitioner company is liable to pay the fine amount. The learned Counsel relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above to fortify his submissions. He urged that the impugned order may be set aside.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the 1^st petitioner is the Managing Director of the 2^nd petitioner company, and had drawn and issued the cheque to the 2^nd respondent/complainant. By Annexure A1 common judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners. Assailing the judgment, the petitioners filed Annexure A2 appeal and an application to suspend the sentence. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court has suspended the sentence conditionally.

5. A reading of Annexure A2 memorandum of appeal unambiguously shows that the petitioners have not raised any of the grounds that are now raised in this criminal miscellaneous case. The petitioners also have no case that the question of law argued before this Court was argued before the Appellate Court at the time of hearing of the application to suspend the sentence. The Appellate Court, following the statutory stipulation under Section 148 of the Act, ordered 20% of the fine amount to be deposited as a precondition to suspend the sentence. Therefore, all the contentions now raised in this Crl. M.C. are untenable.

6. Nevertheless, on a reading of Annexure A3 order, I find that the Appellate Court has not given any reason for directing the 1^st petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount for suspending the sentence, which is against the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in P.Sreenivasan v. Babu Raj (2024 (2) KHC

621), wherein it has been held as follow