The appellate court has discretion to waive fine deposits under exceptional circumstances per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure-A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Punalur (Trial court) in C.C.No.47/2019, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”), the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.83/2025 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Punalur (Appellate court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also filed Annexures-A2 and A3 applications, to suspend the substantive sentence and payment of the statutory fine amount, and to waive deposit of the fine amount, respectively. However, by Annexures-A4 and A5 orders, the Appellate court has dismissed the applications and has ordered the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within 60 days. Annexures-A4 and A5 orders are palpably wrong and unreasonable. The Appellate court has failed to consider the exceptional circumstances stated by the petitioner in Annexures- A2 and A3 applications. The petitioner is suffering from obstructive uropathy and has been diagnosed with urinary microalbuminuria with diabetic nephropathy. He is also suffering from right renal pelvic and renal calculus. In view of the above ailments, the petitioner is unable to do any work. The fine amount ordered is Rs.8,80,000/-. Hence, the petitioner would have to deposit Rs.1,76,000/- before the Trial court. The petitioner does not have the financial resources. The impugned orders are unreasonable and unjustified. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the Crl.M.C. pertains to the suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner, I dispense with notice to the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is undergoing treatment for a long period. The petitioner has produced Annexures A6 and A7 medical certificates to substantiate his illness. The learned counsel prays that the case may be treated as one falling within the category of exceptional circumstances.

4. In Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S.

Deswal & Others. v. Virender 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 in Jamboo 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. Both in Jamboo Bhandari & Surinder Singh Deswal‘s cases (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has categ