High Court ruled that the Appellate Court had the power to waive the 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in exceptional cases, provided reasons were recorded for such a decision.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi addressed a criminal petition and held that the appellate court must consider whether an exceptional case exists before imposing the mandatory 20% deposit condition under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for suspension of sentence, and if it finds such an exception, specific reasons must be recorded for waiving the deposit requirement.
The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash an order passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, dated 26.07.2024, in Crl. M.P. No. 212 of 2024 in Crl. A. No. 51 of 2024. The Sessions Judge had directed the petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month while suspending the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner contended that the order was not in line with the ruling in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2023 SC 09001.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the appellate court has the authority to direct the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court in appeals concerning convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 148 of the Act empowers the appellate court to impose such a condition, allowing for the deposit within a specified time frame. The Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi, REEDLAW 2019 SC 05004 cases had clarified that, although the word “may” in Section 148 grants discretion, the appellate court is generally justified in ordering a deposit of 20% unless it is an exceptional case where such a condition would be unjust.
The Court observed that in the present case, the appellate court had not specifically considered whether the imposition of the 20% deposit condition was unjust or if the case was an exception warranting a waiver of the deposit requirement. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the appellate court to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. The appellate court was instructed to examine the case afresh and dispose of the matter within seven days, with the sentence suspended in the interim. If the petitioner fails to appear before the appellate court, the Criminal Petition will stand dismissed.
Mr. Yannam Narapa Reddy, Advocate represented the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Sai Rohith, Assistant Public Prosecutor for State appeared for the Respondent.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
REEDLAW 2024 AP 08007
Comments