The court has discretion under Section 148 of the N.I. Act to waive deposit conditions in exceptional circumstances.

O R D E R

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Attingal (‘Trial Court’, in short), in S.T.No.214/2016, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (‘NI Act’, for brevity), the petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.169/2025 before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Appellate Court’, in short). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Annexure A3 application to suspend the execution of the substantive sentence and fine and waive the deposit of the fine amount. However, by the impugned Annexure A4 order, the Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within the statutory period. Annexure A4 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The Appellate Court has failed to consider the exceptional circumstances made out by the petitioner in Annexure A3 application. Furthermore, as per Annexure A5 Discharge Card/Discharge Summary, the petitioner’s husband is seriously ill. Hence, the petitioner is not in a position to raise 20% of the fine amount. Therefore, Annexure A4 order may be set aside.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. As the Crl.M.C is filed challenging an order conditionally suspending the sentence, I dispense with notice to the 1^st respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a 54 year old lady, who does not have the financial means to deposit 20% of the fine amount. The petitioner has specifically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that she is a house wife who does not have any other source of income to raise 20% of the fine amount. Notwithstanding the specific assertion, the Appellate Court has rejected the application by a cryptic order, by finding that there are no exceptional circumstances to waive the statutory deposit.

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 underSection 148of 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 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 the Court is to be exercised in cases where exceptional circumstances are made out.

7. In the present case, by Annexure A4 order, the Appellate Court had directed the petitione