Smt. Madhuri Indira Rao Vs Vyas Pathak

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAODate: RAO 2026.03.23 14:56:07 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:13351

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 711 of 2026

¶7

Smt. Madhuri Indira Rao D/o Shri Mahesh Rao Aged About 58 Years R/o21/493, Opposite Bungalow of District and Session Court, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Vyas Pathak S/o Shri Kranti Kumar Pathak Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Navagaon, Post Pandatari, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J. K.	Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent	: …..

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

19/03/2026

¶14

1 Heard.

¶15

2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2026 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge to Court of Sessions Judge, Kawardha District – Kabirdham (C.G.) whereby the learned Sessions Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for exemption to deposit 20% of the compensation passed in the bail order dated 01.01.2026 , whereby the

¶16

2

¶17

petitioner was directed to produce bail bond of like some amount of rs. 20,000/- and also deposit 20% (8,00,000/-) of the fine/compensation amount.

¶18

3 Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1/complainant filed a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced in the case passed the judgment dated 01.01.2026 and convicted the present petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a compensation/fine of Rs. 40,00,000/-.

¶19

4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.01.2026 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court along with an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution of order dated 01.01.2026 which got allowed on 31.01.2026 with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount within stipulated period prescribed under Section 143-A(3) of the Act while suspending the execution of the order dated 01.01.2026.

¶20

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 20% deposit rule under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an "absolute rule" and can be relaxed in exceptional cases. He submits that the word 'may' has been used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the Appellate Court has used discretion but has not given any reason for the same. The learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the execution of order dated 01.01.2026 Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for exemption to deposit the same amount of Rs. 8 lakhs, but the same has been rejected. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed.

¶21

6 Since the issue before this Court hinges upon the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which was subsequently incorporated to

¶22

3

¶23

the N.I. Act vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 20 of 2018), the relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

¶24

1["148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.- (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 per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:

¶25

Provided that………" (2)….. (3)….. Provided that …...]

¶26

7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 446 held that the requirement to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an absolute rule. If the court decides to waive the 20% deposit or if it chooses to enforce it, it must record specific reasons for its decision. It cannot simply apply the rule mechanically. Para 7 of the said decision is relevant and quoted hereinbelow :

¶27

“ 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.I. 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.”

¶28

8 Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2 , also followed the judgment passed in

¶29

1 Inserted by Act No. 20 of 2018, w.e.f. 1-9-2018.

¶30

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4107 : MANU/SC/1431/2024

¶31

4

¶32

Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court.

¶33

9 In the case in hand, impugned order of the learned Appellate court did not disclose any reason whether the case comes under exceptional one or not and whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount.

¶34

10 In those circumstances,the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 of the learned Appellate court is set aside and application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate Court is restored. The learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order as early as possible. Till then, the execution of order dated 01.01.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham (C.G) in Complaint Case No. 105/2019 stands suspended.

¶35

11 Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶38

Rao

Smt. Madhuri Indira Rao v. Vyas Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Indira Rao v. Vyas Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamada Shanmukha Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagrit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Radhabai @ Omeshwari Banjare Vs Lakhanlal Banjare

Bhuneshwar Prasad Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preetam Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh