Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12878
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
Financial hardship does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance to waive the mandatory deposit requirement in appeal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 148 - Appellate Court's power to mandate deposit of compensation - Petitioner challenged the imposition of a 20% deposit condition for suspension of sentence due to financial difficulties - Financial hardship alone does not constitute an exceptional circumstance to waive statutory deposit requirement as per the principle established by the Supreme Court. (Paras 6, 7, 9)
(B) Right to Appeal - The court reaffirmed that conditions set under Section 148 should not unjustly deprive the complainant of compensation - There must be recorded reasons for any exceptions to deposit requirements, ensuring that legislative intent to protect complainants is upheld. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for suspension of sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, stating inability to deposit 20% compensation due to financial constraints.
Findings of Court:
The court held that mere financial difficulty does not merit an exception to the requirement of deposit, reinforcing the mandatory nature of such conditions under Section 148.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the financial constraints of the petitioner justified waiving the 20% deposit for appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial difficulties do not justify waiving statutory deposit requirements under the N.I. Act, highlighting the legislative intent to protect complainants and maintain the integrity of the appellate process.
Result: 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 Cour
