Back
When Age and Ailing Health Trump Cheque Bounce Penalties: P&H HC Grants Relief
In a compassionate ruling, the has stepped in to protect an elderly convict's right to appeal a cheque dishonour conviction. Justice Sumeet Goel modified a Sessions Court order, waiving the mandatory 20% compensation deposit required for suspending the sentence. Petitioner Arjun Walia , aged 69 and battling serious health issues, challenged the condition in a petition under .
From Cheque Bounce to Courtroom Battle: The Trail of Rs 80 Lakh
The saga began with a complaint under filed by respondent Tarun Batra . Walia issued a cheque that bounced with the remark "Exceeds Arrangement," linked to an unpaid loan. On , the , convicted Walia, slapping him with 10 months' simple imprisonment and Rs 80 lakh compensation (plus 3 months' extra jail in default).
Walia appealed to the (CRA-66-2025). On , the appeal was admitted, but sentence suspension came with a sting: deposit 20% (Rs 16 lakh) of the compensation, per . Walia, previously bailed, approached the High Court after an earlier petition was withdrawn for more evidence, including medical records.
Petitioner's Plea: Mercy for the Frail; Respondent's Stand: Justice Delayed is Denied
Walia's counsel painted a picture of vulnerability: a 69-year-old senior citizen in financial distress and deteriorating health, backed by Annexure P-3 medical reports. No hearing was granted before imposing the deposit, they argued, turning the appeal right into a "fetter." Citing , they urged waiver for "exceptional circumstances."
Respondent Batra's advocate countered fiercely: the offence was grave—dishonoured cheque despite demands—and the Sessions order was lawful. No illegality warranted High Court meddling, they insisted, protecting the complainant's hard-won decree from endless delays.
Decoding Section 148: Discretion, Not Dogma
Justice Goel delved into
, inserted in 2018 to curb prolonged cheque bounce litigations and ensure complainants get interim relief. It empowers appellate courts to order at least 20% deposit for suspension, but with discretion for exceptions in
"
."
The bench leaned on Supreme Court wisdom:
- Jamboo Bhandari (supra): Appellate courts can waive the 20% if unjust, but must record reasons. Blanket applications still demand scrutiny for exceptions.
- : Discretion leans toward deposit, but exceptional cases allow no-deposit orders with justification.
Echoing —much like the P&H HC's recent stance in where post-retirement penalties were toned down for fairness—the court stressed credible evidence trumps routine imposition.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"The convict bears the onus of demonstratingto persuade the appellate Court to waive or relax the statutory requirement of deposit under Section 148..."
"A perusal of the aforesaidreveals that the same is bereft of any reasoning while directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount..."
"...the petitioner has placed on record material indicating circumstances beyond his control whichrender him unable to deposit 20%..."
These quotes underscore the High Court's pivot: Sessions Court's unreasoned order met Walia's substantiated plight head-on.
Relief Granted: Deposit Scrapped, Appeal Fast-Tracked
The final order is precise:
"Thedated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learnedis modified only to the extent of setting aside the condition of deposit of 20% amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court..."
The appeal must now conclude within 4 weeks, with no merits comment. Liberty on bail bonds persists.
This nuanced call safeguards seniors' appeal access without undermining NI Act goals. Future benches may cite it for health-driven waivers, but only with ironclad proof—ensuring complainants aren't left high and dry in the cheque jungle.
