THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl. M.C.No.4426 of 2026

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

Dated this the 18th day of June, 2026

O R D E R

By Annexure-C judgment passed in S.T.No.15 of 2016 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Attingal ('Trial Court', in short), the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I.Act', in short), on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Assailing Annexure-C judgment, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.123 of 2026 before the Additional Sessions Judge-IV (Vacation Court), Thiruvananthapuram ('Appellate Court', in short). Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed Annexure-F application to suspend the execution of the sentence. By Annexure-E order, the Appellate Court has suspended the sentence, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount within 60 days and execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties. The petitioner contents that he is a senior citizen suffering from various ailments. It was not mandatory for the Appellate Court to have directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount. Therefore, the condition in Annexure-E order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount may be set aside.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. As this Crl.M.C. is filed with regard to suspension of the sentence, I dispense with notice to the 2nd respondent.

3. On a reading of Annexure-F application, I find that, though the petitioner had sought to suspend the execution of the sentence, he had not sought to waive the statutory deposit envisaged under Section 148 of the N.I.Act.

4. In Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd [2023 (6) KHC 80], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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.

5. In light of the above exposition of law, it was imperative on the part of the petitioner to have filed an application to waive the statutory deposit by making out exceptional circumstances.

6. In the case at hand, as already stated above, the petitioner has not even filed an application to waive the statutory deposit. Thus, I do not find any error or illegality in Annexure-E order, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within 60 days. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the petitioner had filed this Crl.M.C. immediately after passing of Annexure-E order, in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, I enlarge the time period fixed in Annexure-E order, to make the deposit, by a further period of 30 days from today. In case, the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount on or before 18.07.2026, the sentence imposed as per Annexure C judgment would stand suspended and the petitioner would be permitted to execute the bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum as ordered by the Appellate Court.

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.