The discretion under Section 148 of the N.I. Act permits waiver of statutory deposit under exceptional circumstances established by the applicant.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 707 of 2026 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 ORDER Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, North Paravur (Trial Court) in ST No.935/2022, 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.675/2025 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, North Paravur (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Annexure A3 application to waive the statutory deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. However, by Annexure A4 order, the Appellate Court dismissed Annexure A3 application and by Annexure A5 order the Appellate Court suspended the sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount. Annexures A4 and A5 orders are unreasonable and unjustifiable. The petitioner had specifically pleaded in Annexure A3 application that he does not have properties and he is suffering from severe back pain. Hence, he is precluded from taking up any job. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court, without assigning any reason, has dismissed the application. Annexures A4 and A5 orders are 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 ). Therefore, Annexures A4 and A5 orders may be set aside and Annexure A3 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 submits that, the Appellate Court has failed to consider the law laid down in the decisions referred to above. Even though the petitioner had specifically stated in Annexure A3 application that he is indisposed and is in penury, the Appellate Court has dismissed the application and directed the execution of the sentence to be suspended on deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, that too without assigning any reason in the said order. 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 Section 148 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 dis