Court discretion under Section 148 of the NI Act can be invoked in exceptional circumstances to waive statutory deposit requirements for sentence suspension.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kattappana, in C.C.No.204/2020, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , (‘NI Act’, in short), the petitioner has preferred Crl. Appeal No.171/2025 on the file of the Court of Session, Thodupuzha (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner had filed an application to suspend the execution of the substantive sentence and fine imposed on him. However, by the impugned Annexure A2 order, the Appellate Court suspended the sentence, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine/compensation amount within sixty days, failing which the order suspending sentence will stand vacated. In fact the petitioner had specifically pleaded in the application that he is a daily labourer having no means to deposit the compensation amount. Although, the petitioner made out exceptional circumstances, the Appellate Court has passed the impugned order, which is untenable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the limited relief that I proposed to pass and the fact that the matter pertains to suspension of the sentence, I dispense with notice to the 2^nd respondent .

3. The petitioner’s specific case in the application is that, he is a daily labourer having no financial means. Therefore, he may be exempted from depositing any fine/compensation amount as envisaged under Section 148 of the NI Act.

4. In Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others v. Virendar Gandhi ( 2019 (11) SCC 341 ) , the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the language under Section 148 of the N.I.Act is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. Therefore, the discretion is vested with the Appellate Court to decide whether 20% of the fine/compensation amount is to be deposited or waived, for suspending the sentence imposed on the accused. The said provision has to be purposefully interpreted in furtherance of the objects and reasons of the amendment under Section

148 of the N.I.Act.

5. The above view has been reiterated inJamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ( 2023 (6) KHC 80 ) by holding that when an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief for suspension of sentence without condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellant, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the case falls within exceptional grounds. An identical view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court inSreenivasan P. v. Babu Raj ( 2024 (2) KHC 621 ), by holding that the Appellate Court has a discretion to either order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine/ compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court or to waive such deposit. In either case, the Appellate Court has to give reasons for exercising such statutory discretion.

6. In the instant case, although the petitioner has specifically mentioned the exceptional circumstances to wave the statutory deposit of 20% as envisaged under Section 148 of the NI Act, the Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount without assigning any reason.

7. Both in Jamboo Bhandari & Surinder Singh Deswal ‘s cases (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that discretion of the Court is to be exercised in cases where exceptional circumstances are made out.

8. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially the reasons stated in the application,