The appellate court can waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if compelling circumstances are demonstrated.

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, in CRA-66-2025 dated 04.06.2025 (complaint NI-2-2017) instituted on 07.01.2017, decided on 09.05.2025), vide which, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the total compensation amount awarded by the learned trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’), instituted at the instance of respondent No.1 – complainant, in respect of dishonour of the cheque in question, the petitioner was released on bail by the trial Court. However, vide judgment and order dated 09/12.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 months and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment/order, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P- 2), while admitting the appeal, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action after appending further material, including material pertaining to medical condition of the petitioner, vide order dated 09.07.2025, passed by this Court.

2.1. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any cogent or reasoned findings and without due consideration of the petitioner’s advanced age, being approximately 69 years, and his adverse medical condition (medical reports are appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition in hand). Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court on account of financial difficulty coupled with his deteriorating medical condition. Learned counsel has further argued that no adequate or effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2025, whereby the condition for deposit of 20% of the compensation amount has been stipulated by the learned Sessions Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that imposition of such a condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate, would virtually operate as a fetter upon the statutory right of appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be quashed, to the limited extent of the condition requiring deposit of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel relies upon the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2023 (10) SCC 446 .

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the grant of the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, inasmuch as the cheque issued by the petitioner towards discharge of his liability of repayment of the loan amount in question was dishonoured with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangement”, and despite repeated deman