Santosh Kumar. G Vs R. S. Impresssion

SANTOSH KUMAR. G S/O LATE GOPALAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, SRI NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, CHIKKALASANDRA, NEAR VN RESIDENCY, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANU N.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

R. S. IMPRESSSION REP BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR G.N.MAHESH, S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HEAD OFFICE AT NO.728/82, 11TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. N. K. KANTHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF THE CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2025 MADE ON IA NO.NIL, ON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, IN CRI.APL.NO.1636/2025, ON THE FILE OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, (CCH -68).

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 09.12.2025, which rejects an application filed by the complainant seeking modification of the order and directing deposit of 20% of the fine amount, which would amount to Rs.10,00,000/-, owing to the backdrop of the situation. The petitioner is the accused. The respondent is the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction leads to the accused issuing certain cheques in favour of the complainant. The cheques have been dishonoured, the complainant institutes proceedings invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI' Act for short).

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The petitioner gets convicted of the offence, files an

¶27

appeal against the conviction. While filing the appeal had deposited 20% of the fine amount that was determined by the

¶28

trial Court in terms of the order of conviction on 06.01.2025. The First Appellate Court after the said deposit notices procedural lacunae in the order passed by the concerned Court

¶29

and remits the matter back to the hands of the trial Court for a reconsideration of the issue on its merit all over again. The reconsideration turns worse off to the present petitioner, as the fine amount is now doubled from Rs.25,00,000/to Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner again approaches the First Appellate Court challenging the order of conviction dated 26.09.2025. The respondent/complainant now files an application that he should deposit 20% of the amount that is newly determined on the remand proceedings i.e., Rs.50,00,000/-, the fine amount and 20% being Rs.10,00,000/-. The said order which direct deposit of 20% of the fine amount, which is now determined at Rs.10,00,000/- is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard Sri. Manu N.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in fact deposited 20% diligently at the first instance, when the appeal was preferred against conviction. In the second instance, this fine is doubled. Therefore, he sought indulgence at the hands of the concerned Court to dispense with deposit of 20% of the doubled fine amount in the second proceeding and the complainant files an application seeking deposit of the said 20% of the fine amount and that is accepted. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the concerned Court is bereft of reasons without considering the fact that there was an earlier deposit.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

respondent/complainant submits that the issue is the following of the mandate of the statute. Under Section 148 of the NI Act, it is the mandate that 20% of the fine amount or

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

compensation determined by the concerned Court is imperative. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

¶41

The afore-narrated facts, dates linked in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The first conviction of the petitioner happens on 20.07.2022, where the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,00,000/- as fine and Rs.5,000/- as compensation in addition to the cheque amount. The petitioner files an appeal in Crl.A.No.957/2022 before the Court of Session seeking suspension of sentence. Sentence is suspended, subject to the condition of compliance with the rigours of Section 148 of the NI Act. Section 148 mandates deposit of 20% of the amount for seeking suspension of sentence. The petitioner did deposit the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, sentence stood suspended. At a later point in time, on 06.01.2025, noticing the fact that the order passed by the trial Court was contrary to law, sets aside the order and

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

remits the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court for consideration afresh.

¶46

The consideration afresh happens by an order dated 26.09.2025, which places the petitioner worse off by doubling the fine amount to Rs.50,00,000/-. The mandate of the statute would saddle the petitioner with another Rs.10,00,000/- to be deposited, which would become Rs.15,00,000/- on the same proceeding. Though it has now become twice over on the act of the concerned Court in remitting the matter back to the hands of the trial Court for a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, while the said certificate could have been

¶47

taken by the Appellate Court, itself. The issue now would be whether the order of the concerned Court, which directs payment of 20% is in consonance with law or otherwise. The order reads as follows:

¶48

" ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s. 528 of BNSS

¶49

The Counsel for respondent has filed an application U/s. 528 of BNSS.

¶50

Heard. Perused.

¶51

After going through the documents placed before the Court and the grounds of appeal, the respondent has made out grounds. Having regard to the urgency in the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

matter and considering that, the trial Court has passed sentence of fine i.e., double the cheque amount, hence it is just and necessary pass the following order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The appellant shall deposit 20% of fine amount before trial court within 60 days from the date of this order. In default the order of suspension of sentence and judgment stands vacated.

¶58

Appellant shall execute personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for likesum.

¶59

For compliance by 30/01/2026."

¶60

A perusal at the order would indicate blatant non

¶61

application of mind on the part of the concerned Court for not having considered any of the submissions made or any of the contentions, which was made before the Court, as well. The Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI Vs . M.P. SIDC Ltd. , reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446 has considered this aspect, as to whether it is mandatory for the concerned Court to suspend a sentence on a condition precedent that 20% of the amount should be paid or otherwise.

¶62

The Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO

¶63

BHANDARI (supra) holds as follows:

¶64

"3. An appeal was preferred by the appellants before the Sessions Court. Relying upon Section 148 NI Act, the

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Sessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) subject to condition of the appellants depositing 20% of the amount of compensation. Vide the impugned judgment [ Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5852]^, [ Satish Ji Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5853] , the High Court has confirmed the order of the Sessions Court.

¶69

4. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi [ Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi , (2019) 11 SCC 341 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 461 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 765] . The High Court proceeded on the footing that, as this Court has interpreted the word “may” appearing in Section 148 as “shall”, the relief of suspension of sentence under Section 389CrPC can be granted only by directing the accused to deposit minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount.

¶70

5. Para 8 of the decision of this Court in Surinder Singh Deswal [ Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi , (2019) 11 SCC 341 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 461 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 765] reads thus : (SCC p. 350)

¶71

“ 8 . Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that even considering the language used in Section 148 NI Act as amended, the appellate court “may” order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and the word used is not “shall” and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court to direct the appellant-accused to deposit such sum, and the appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section 148 NI Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended Section 148 NI Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Section 148 NI Act, though it is

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

true that in the amended Section 148 NI Act, the word used is “may”, it is generally to be construed as a “rule” or “shall” and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned. Therefore amended Section 148 NI Act confers power upon the appellate court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the appellant-accused under Section 389CrPC to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended Section 148 NI Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 NI Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 NI Act, but also Section 138 NI Act . The Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonour of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions, Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 NI Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 NI Act and also Section 138 NI Act.”

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

(emphasis supplied)

¶80

6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 NI Act. Hence, normally, the 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.

¶81

7. Therefore, when the appellate court considers the prayer under Section 389CrPC of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 NI 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.

¶82

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.

¶83

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389CrPC 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.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception.

¶88

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court.

¶89

12. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders [ Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5852]^, [ Satish Ji Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5853] of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 9-10-2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored revision petitions, the interim order [ Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd. , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1204] passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate."

¶90

The Apex Court holds that it is not a straight jacket formula in all cases that the 20% amount should be deposited for suspension of sentence. It would depend on case to case

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:13530 CRL.P No. 2137 of 2026

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

basis. The Appellate Court has a duty to consider the issue on case to case basis.

¶95

It is not a case where the petitioner has not

¶96

deposited Rs.5,00,000/- at the time when the first appeal was filed. The appellate Court remits the matter back on a very trivial issue of a certificate not being filed under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas it could have itself taken the certificate on its board. The reason for remittance being so trivial has landed the petitioner in trouble, as the fine is now doubled. In the light of the earlier amount of Rs.5,00,000/being paid and withdrawn by the complainant, the concerned Court ought to have noticed all those factors, while directing the amount of 20% to suspend the sentence. Therefore, the order of the concerned Court must be obliterated, while remitting the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to consider the submissions of the petitioner afresh and pass necessary orders thereon. The sentence shall remain suspended, till the order would be passed by the concerned Court. The concerned Court shall, while passing the order, bear in mind the observations made in the course of this order.

¶97