Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12877
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Santokh Singh – Appellant
Versus
Brij Bhushan Jain – Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4879/2025 | Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4880/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kamaldeep Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP
The mere assertion of financial hardship is insufficient to waive the mandatory deposit required under Section 148 of the N.I. Act; exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 148 - Suspension of sentences in appeal - Appellate Court may order minimum deposit of 20% of fine/compensation - A condition may be waived upon proving exceptional circumstances - Mere financial hardship does not suffice for waiver of the deposit. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Exceptional Cases - The requirement of deposit is designed to protect complainant's rights and prevent frivolous appeals - The Court must recognize genuine hardship, but the grounds must be recorded. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a 74-year-old, challenged conditions imposed for suspension of his sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, claiming financial difficulties hinder his ability to deposit the amount.
Findings of Court:
Financial hardship alone does not justify waiving the mandated deposit as it undermines the intent of protecting complainants' rights.
Issues: Whether financial difficulties can warrant waiver of the 20% deposit requirement for appeal in cheque dishonor cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the appellate courts have discretion, financial inability alone does not justify waiving the deposit requirement unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Result: Present criminal misc. petitions dismissed.
Order
03/07/2025 By way of filing these criminal misc. petitions under Section
528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar in Criminal Appeal Nos.30/2025 and 29/2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar in the impugned order, ordered the suspension of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act N.I. Act upon complying with the condition of depositing 20% of the amount of compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 74 years is not in a position to deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation amount on account of the financial difficulties. Learned counsel submitted that imposition of the condition of depositing 20% of the amount of compensation amounts to taking away the right of appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned orders be quashed, to the extent of the condition imposing deposition of
20% of the amount of compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 17.03.2025 in CRL.M.C.1327/2025 & CRL.M.A.5884/2025-
“ Anuj Ahuja v. Sumitra Mittal ”
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
Section 148 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“148.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:
Provided that the amount payable under this sub- section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section
143A.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) SCC 446” has pleased to hold as under:-
“ 6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.1. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 . However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
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.1. 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, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.
8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.
9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not”
The Apex Court in
