The court exercised its discretion to waive the mandatory deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on exceptional circumstances.

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No. 1482 OF 2026 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 ORDER Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala (Trial Court) in ST No.5/2019, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’, for brevity), the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.353/2025 before the Court of Session, Kottayam, which has been transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also preferred an application to suspend the substantive sentence and also the fine imposed on him. However, by the impugned Annexure A5 order, the Appellate Court has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount without adverting to the exceptional circumstances made out by the petitioner in the application to suspend the sentence.

Annexure A5 order is erroneous and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble 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 ). The Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is suffering from coronary artery disease and he is in financial distress. Hence, Annexure A5 order may be quashed.

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 2^nd respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had specifically stated in the application to suspend the sentence that he is suffering from coronary artery disease and he is in financial distress. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any amount as envisaged under Section 148 of the N.I.Act. The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to Annexure A3 certificate issued by the petitioner’s hospital to substantiate that he had undergone a coronary artery bypass grafting on 20.09.2025 and was discharged on 27.09.2025. The learned Counsel, therefore, prays that Annexure A5 order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount, may be waived.

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),