An appellate court may waive the mandatory deposit of compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act in exceptional circumstances.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.2664 of 2025 Arokiya Aswin ... Petitioner Vs K.Venkatesan ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to modify the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court at the credit of S.T.C.No.1746 of 2022 order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 in C.A.No.90 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan for Mr.J.Ramesh

ORDER

This petition has been filed to modify the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court at the credit of S.T.C.No.1746 of 2022 in the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 in C.A.No.90 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent alleging that the petitioner borrowed money and in order to repay the same, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 22.11.2021 to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/- and when the same was presented for collection, it got dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”. After issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act, filed complaint.

4. After fulfledged trial, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also awarded compensation to the tune of the cheque amount, failing which to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.90 of 2025 along with an application to suspend the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The appellate Court suspended the sentence of the petitioner imposed by the Trial Court, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount to the credit of the Trial Court. However, the petitioner could not able to deposit the said amount and as such, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

03.12.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after borrowal of loan amount, the petitioner had repaid the entire loan amount with interest. He categorically replied for the notice issued by the respondent under Section 138 of NI Act and additional reply notice was also issued to the respondent. Both the reply notices were marked as Exs.P6 and P7. Even then, the Trial Court failed to consider the same and did not even discuss the reply notices and mechanically convicted the petitioner. Further, the provisions under Section 148 of NI Act is only directory in nature and it is not mandatory. Therefore, the appellate Court ought not to have imposed any condition while suspending the sentence.

6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment reported in 2023 (10) SCC 446 in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and other , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:- “ 7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier