The court confirmed that the discretion to waive the statutory deposit under Section 148 of the N.I. Act should be exercised based on exceptional circumstances.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 676 of 2026 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 ORDER Aggrieved by Annexure-1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna (Trial Court) in ST No.297/2021, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’, in short), the petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.153/2025 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Annexures 3 and 4 applications to suspend the sentence and to waive the statutory deposit of 20% as envisaged under Section 148 of the N.I.Act. However, by the impugned Annexure-7 order, the Appellate Court has dismissed the application for waiver and by Annexure-5 order, the Appellate Court has suspended the sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount. Annexures 5 and 7 orders are unreasonable, unjustifiable and against the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ( 2023 (6) KHC 80 ) and Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others v. Virendar Gandhi ( 2019 (11) SCC 341 ). In fact in Annexure-4 application, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that his property has already been attached and a decree has been passed against him. This finding is discernible from Annexure-1 judgment. Moreover, the petitioner has also stated that he is in penury and not in a position to raise 20% of the fine amount. Notwithstanding the specific contentions, the Appellate Court has dismissed the applications without assigning any reason. Hence, Annexures 5 and 7 orders may be set aside and Annexure-4 application may be allowed.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. As the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed with regard to suspension of execution of the sentence, I dispense with notice to the 1^st respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner re-iterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.10 of Annexure-1 judgment, wherein it is specifically found that the suit was decreed and that an attachment before judgment is in existence. Moreover, in Annexure-4 application, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that he is in penury and is unable to raise 20% of the fine amount.

4. In Surinder Singh Deswal’ case (supra), 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 of the N.I.Act.

5. The above view has been reiterated in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) 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 in Sreenivasan 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 categorically held that discretion of t