The court held that statutory requirements for the suspension of sentence must be adhered to unless exceptional circumstances are presented, confirming the Appellate Court's order.

ORDER

Aggrieved by Annexure 2 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Nedumangad, (‘Trial Court’, in short), in S.T.No.8/2017, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , (‘NI Act’, in short) the petitioner has preferred Crl.Appeal No.232/2025 before the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘Appellate Court’, in short). Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application to suspend the execution of the sentence. By Annexure 3 order, the Appellate Court has allowed the application, by suspending the execution of sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties and also deposit 20% of the fine amount within the statutory period. Annexure 3 order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. As the Crl.M.C pertains to the suspension of execution of sentence, I dispense with notice to the 1^st respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Appellate Court has not assigned any reason in Annexure 3 order while ordering the petitioner to deposit 20 % of the fine amount as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inJamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ( 2023 (6) KHC 80 ) and this Court in Sreenivasan P. v. Babu Raj [ 2024(2) KHC 621 ]. Therefore, Annexure 3 order may be set aside. The execution of sentence may be unconditionally suspended.

4. On going through Annexure 4 application filed by the petitioner to suspend the execution of sentence, I find the petitioner has not stated any reason to make out an exceptional circumstance to waive the statutory deposit as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the afore- cited decisions. Thus, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in Annexure 3 order, passed by Appellate Court warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Nonetheless, taking into consideration the fact that the Crl.M.C has been pending before this Court, I am of the view that the time period to deposit 20% of the fine amount is to be enlarged by a further period of 60 days from today (24.03.2026).

In the aforesaid circumstance, I dismiss the Crl.M.C, by confirming Annexure 3 order, but, I enlarge the time period fixed in Annexure 3 order, by a further period of 60 days from today. It is made clear that, if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, the suspension of execution of sentence will stand vacated.