Challenging a Sessions Court Order Directing 20% Deposit of Cheque Amount Through High Court Revision

When a person convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 approaches the Sessions Court in appeal and seeks suspension of sentence, the appellate court frequently imposes a condition: deposit of 20% of the fine or compensation amount awarded. Many accused persons feel this condition is excessive or mechanically imposed, and the natural question that follows is — can I file a revision application before the High Court against the order of deposition of 20% of the cheque amount passed by the Sessions Court?

The short answer is generally yes, such a revision is maintainable, but the scope of what the High Court can actually do in revision is far narrower than most litigants expect.

The Short Answer: Maintainable, But Limited

A revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be filed before the High Court against an interlocutory or final order passed by the Sessions Court in a cheque dishonour case, including an order directing deposit of 20% of the cheque amount as a precondition for suspending the sentence. However, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. It does not permit the High Court to re-appreciate evidence, re-judge facts, or substitute its own view for the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 202 and 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 236 and 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 231.

In practical terms, the revision must be built on one or more of the following grounds:

• Perversity — the Sessions Court's order is based on no evidence or ignores relevant material
• Illegality or jurisdictional error — the court below acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
• Patent irregularity or gross miscarriage of justice — the order results in an outcome so unfair that intervention is warranted 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 336 and 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 434

Unless one of these is demonstrated, the High Court will typically decline to interfere 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 202.

Where the 20% Deposit Requirement Comes From

The deposit condition traces its origin to Damodar S. Prabhu v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court laid down a graded scheme of costs to encourage compounding of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act 2010 3 Supreme 547 and 2016 0 Supreme(Tri) 383. Later, in Surinder Singh Deswal v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court construed the word may in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as shall, effectively making the deposit of 20% of the fine or compensation a mandatory condition for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal 2019 6 Supreme 84.

Significantly, however, the same judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal recognised that a direction to deposit 20% of the compensation can be dispensed with by the appellate court in exceptional circumstances, provided special reasons are assigned

Thomas VS State of Kerala - Crimes (2020)

How High Courts Have Actually Handled Such Orders

Recent decisions show that revisional interference with deposit orders is possible, particularly where the order suffers from non-application of mind:

• In one matter before the Rajasthan High Court, a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a Sessions Judge's order succeeded, and the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount was modified — the petitioner was directed to deposit only 10% of the cheque amount instead of 20%, the court recognising the discretionary character of the condition in the face of demonstrated financial hardship 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11550.
• Similarly, the Telangana High Court reduced the mandatory deposit for suspension of sentence from 20% to 10% of the cheque amount, citing the petitioner's financial inability and the need for the appellate court to record reasons rather than impose the condition mechanically 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 23572.
• Where an impugned order is non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind, revisional courts have found such orders unsustainable in law, since the absence of reasoning indicates a lack of due consideration 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36832.

These outcomes underline an important drafting point: if your revision alleges that the Sessions Court imposed the 20% condition mechanically without recording subjective satisfaction or special reasons, your petition has a realistic foundation. By contrast, if you merely dispute the underlying findings of guilt, the High Court will rarely re-open concurrent findings in revision.

A Word on Limitation and Procedure

Timing matters. While the CrPC does not prescribe a rigid limitation for revision in the same manner as appeals, High Courts expect revision applications to be filed promptly after the impugned order, and any delay ordinarily requires an application for condonation supported by sufficient cause. Where the Sessions Court itself disposed of an application for suspension of sentence, the revision should squarely target that order and plead the specific grounds of irregularity, illegality, or perversity. Procedural requirements such as surrender or custody, where applicable under the relevant High Court Rules, must also be addressed — though courts have held that such requirements yield where the lower appellate court never adjudicated the matter on merits 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36832.

Key Takeaways

1. Yes, revision lies. An order of the Sessions Court directing deposit of 20% of the cheque amount can be challenged before the High Court under Section 397 CrPC.
2. But the High Court's hands are tied on facts. It will not re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity, illegality, or gross miscarriage of justice 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 202 and 2026 0 Supreme(HP) 236.
3. The 20% rule is not absolute. Exceptional circumstances — particularly genuine financial hardship — can justify reduction or exemption, but the burden lies on the accused to bring special reasons to the court's attention

   Thomas VS State of Kerala - Crimes (2020)

   2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11550 and 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 23572.
4. Reasoning is everything. A non-speaking or mechanical deposit order is far more vulnerable in revision than a reasoned one 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36832 and 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1014.
5. Act promptly. File within a reasonable time, plead specific grounds, and attach material demonstrating exceptional circumstances.

This article reflects general information drawn from judicial precedents and is not a substitute for advice on your specific case; the strength of any revision will always depend on the record of your own proceedings.