The Appellate Court has the discretion under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to waive the 20% deposit for suspension of sentence, but such waiver is only permissible upon the establishment of exceptional circumstances.

CRIME NO.0/0 OF ,

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2026 IN Crl.M.Appl 1/2026 IN Crl.A NO.183 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSURORDER DATED 22.05.2026 IN Crl.M.Appl 1/2026 IN Crl.A NO.183 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.4171 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKKANCHERRY

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

V.P KRISHNADAS

AGED 35 YEARS

S/O SANKARANKUTTY, VAZHATHODI PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE,

KOONATHARA, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD,

PIN - 679522

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 V.K.N UDAYABHANU

S/O NARAYANA PANIKKER, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, ENGAKKAD VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,

PIN – 680589

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2026

Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed bythe Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery (Trial Court) in S.T No.4171/2017, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I.Act’, in short), on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.183/2026 before the Court of Session, Thrissur (Appellate Court). Along with the appeal, the petitioner had filed application to suspend the execution of the substantive sentence. By the impugned Annexure A2 order dated 22.05.2026, the Appellate Court had suspended the sentence, but has directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount within 60 days from the date of order. Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P No.2/2026, to waive the statutory deposit as envisaged under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner therefore prays that this Court may set aside Annexure A2 order and waive the statutory depositas envisaged under Section 148 of the N.I. Act.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file anyapplication along the appeal to waive the statutory deposit on the ground of exceptional circumstances. Instead, the petitioner filed application to suspend substantive sentence, which was allowed by Annexure A2 order subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits20% of the fine amount within 60 days.

3. 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 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 amendmentunder Section 148 of the N.I.Act.

4. 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 statutorydiscretion.

5. Both in Jamboo Bhandari & Surinder SinghDeswal‘s cases (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that discret