The Appellate Court must provide reasons when exercising discretion under statutory provisions relating to fine deposits during appeal.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No. 31 of 2026 ------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2026 ORDER Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in ST No.25/20219 passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kattappana (Trial Court), the petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.154/2025 (Annexure-A1) before the Court of Session, Thodupuzha (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal the petitioner also filed Annexure-A2 application to suspend the execution of the sentence. However, by the impugned Annexure-A3 order, the Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within 60 days from the date of order, failing which the suspension of sentence would stand vacated. Annexure A3 order is erroneous and improper and is against the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , [(2023) 10 SCC 446] . The petitioner has specifically pleaded in Annexure A2 application that he was in financial distress to remit the fine amount. Hence, Annexure A3 order may be quashed.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the 1^st respondent.

3. The petitioner’s specific case is that he is in financial distress and is unable to remit 20% of the fine amount as ordered in Annexure-A3 order. Although the petitioner has specifically pleaded about his financial difficulties, the Appellate Court has failed to give any reason in the impugned order, while directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount.

4. In Sreenivasan P vs. Babu Raj [2024 (2) KHC 621] , a Division Bench of this Court after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone on to hold as follows:

“8. In our view, a reading of S.148 of the N.I. Act as an exception to the general principles of suspension of sentence by an Appellate Court as contained in S.389 of the CrPC , and in the backdrop of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari (supra) would result in the following interpretation as regards the nature and manner of exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court under S.148 of the N.I. Act :

(a) Under S.148 of the N.I. Act , the Appellate Court has a discretion to either order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court or to waive such deposit. In either event, since it would be exercising a statutory discretion, the Appellate Court would be legally obliged to furnish reasons for its decision so as to unambiguously indicate that its discretion was exercised keeping in mind the object of the statutory provision.

(b) If the Appellate Court, pursuant to the exercise of its discretion, finds that the appellant is required to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court pending disposal of the appeal, then the amount directed to be deposited cannot be less than an amount equivalent to 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court.

(c) If the Appellate Court chooses to direct the appellant to deposit any sum which is more than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court, then it would be obliged to give further reasons for directing the deposit of such amounts as are in excess of the minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court.”

5. A reading of Annexure A3 order shows that the Appellate Court has not assigned any reason for directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount which is against the princip