Allowed¶41

Vaishali Ganeshchandra Bhat v. Smt. Arpitha

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2026CRL.P/3768/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act after acquittal in Section 138 NI Act case; suspension of sentence precondition; Criminal Appeal No. 20/2025; order dated 13.01.2026 of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore quashed; pendency of appeal against acquittal before co-ordinate bench no bar to refund; CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026; S. 482 Cr.P.C. / S. 528 BNNS; High Court of Karnataka; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; refund within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Crl.Appeal No.20/2025 quashed; concerned Court directed to refund the 20% amount in deposit within 4 weeks from receipt of copy of the order. ¶41

Vaishali Ganeshchandra Bhat Vs Smt. Arpitha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for refund of the 20% deposit made at the time of filing Criminal Appeal 20/2025 is sustainable. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The reason rendered in the impugned order is erroneous: the condition precedent for suspension of sentence was before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal 20/2025, not before any other Court.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Once the proceedings concluded before the appellate Court, the 20% amount in deposit automatically goes to the hands of the accused; a pending appeal against the acquittal is a separate proceeding in which separate conditions could be imposed if the acquittal were reversed.

¶36

Key takeaways

In that light, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable, and its unsustainability leads to its obliteration.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M. Nagaprasanna J., oral order dated 10.04.2026 in CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026, filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. / S. 528 BNNS): The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had deposited 20% of the amount before the Sessions Court as a precondition under Section 148 NI Act for suspension of sentence while Criminal Appeal No. 20/2025 was pending. After acquittal, her memo seeking refund was rejected by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore (order dated 13.01.2026) on the ground that an appeal against the acquittal was pending before a co-ordinate bench of the High Court. Holding that once the appellate proceedings conclude, the deposit automatically goes to the accused, and that any appeal against acquittal is a separate proceeding where separate conditions could be imposed if the acquittal were reversed, the High Court quashed the order dated 13.01.2026 and directed refund of the 20% deposit within four weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20264 CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3768 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

VAISHALI GANESHCHANDRA BHAT W/O GANESHCHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MAKARANDA HOUSE, PERAJE VILLAGE, BUDOLI POST, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 253

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

SMT. ARPITHA W/O ASHOK NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT ERANTHAKAJE HOUSE, BOLLAJE POST, NELLU KEMRAJE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 248

¶16

&RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.20/2025 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:20264 CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶21

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.01.2026 which rejects the application of the petitioner for refund of the 20% amount that was deposited at the time of filing the appeal before the concerned Court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri K.Ravishankar,

¶26

appearing for the petitioner.

¶27

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶28

The petitioner is the accused gets convicted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction is challenged before the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal 20/2025. As obtained in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner had to deposit 20% of the amount as a precondition to the suspension of sentence.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:20264 CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner compliance of the said directions deposits 20% of the amount. The criminal appeal is tried.

¶33

The petitioner gets acquitted of the offence. Thus ends the proceeding before the concerned Court in Criminal Appeal No.20/2025. The petitioner then files a memo before the concerned Court seeking refund of the said amount in the teeth of the acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2025.

¶34

The concerned Court by the impugned Order 13.01.2026 rejects the application on the score that a criminal appeal is pending at the hands of the Co-ordinate Bench this Court and therefore, the amount cannot be released. The reason rendered in the order on the face of it is erroneous as the condition precedent for suspension of sentence is not before any other Court, but before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal 20/2025.

¶35

Once the proceedings get concluded before the said Court, the 20% amount that is in deposit would automatically go to the hands of the accused. If the appeal against the acquittal is pending, that is a separate

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20264 CRL.P No. 3768 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

proceeding where separate conditions could be imposed in

¶39

the event the acquittal gets reversed at the hands of this Court. In that light, the order is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability would lead to its obliteration.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is

¶41

allowed. The order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore in Crl.Appeal No.20/2025 is quashed.

¶42

The concerned Court shall now refund the

¶43

amount of 20% in deposit before it within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶45

tsn* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Vaishali Ganeshchandra Bhat v. Smt. Arpitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali Ganeshchandra Bhat v. Smt. Arpitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashanth Gupta @ Junaid Ahmed Alam Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Shekhar Mishra Vs State of Karnataka

Miranda Rodriguez Daniela Vs Union of India

Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nirdhala Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

TV9 Karnataka Private Limited, Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Cbi/Scb/Chennai