Allowed¶40

Mrs. Girija R v. Mrs. Geetha

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 138 and 148

Kerala HC6 Mar 2025Crl.MC/2183/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C No. 2183 of 2025, High Court of Kerala (V.G. Arun, J.), decided 06.03.2025. Keywords: Section 148 NI Act; 20% deposit condition; suspension of sentence; duty to record reasons; Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 2023 (6) KHC 80; Baiju v. State of Kerala 2023 (7) KHC 669; quashing of appellate order; Section 138 conviction; C.C. No. 91/2023 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance; notice to complainant dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A-2 order quashed; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to reconsider the petition for suspension of sentence and pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks; execution of any pending non-bailable warrant against the petitioner kept in abeyance till then. ¶40

Mrs. Girija R Vs Mrs. Geetha — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate court's order (Annexure A-2) under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act directing deposit of 20% of the fine as a condition for suspending sentence, without stating reasons, is liable to be sustained.

¶39

Court's answer

An appellate court insisting on deposit of 20% of compensation/fine under Section 148 NI Act as a condition for suspending sentence is under a duty to state reasons for doing so; since no such reason is stated in Annexure A-2, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure A-2 order is quashed; the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall reconsider the petition for suspension of sentence and pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, and till such time execution of any pending non-bailable warrant against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act — Sections 138 and 148 — Conviction under S.138; appellate court (Annexure A-2 order dated 04.12.2024) directed accused to deposit 20% of the fine as a condition for suspending sentence without recording any reason. Relying on Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [2023 (6) KHC 80] and following Baiju v. State of Kerala [2023 (7) KHC 669], the Court held that the appellate court casts upon itself a duty to state reasons for insisting on the 20% deposit, and that absence of such reasons renders the order liable to be set aside. Crl.M.C allowed; Annexure A-2 quashed; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to reconsider the suspension petition and pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks; execution of any pending non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance till then.

¶1

2025:KER:29656

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 2183 OF 2025

¶7

ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 IN CC NO.91 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL

¶8

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

MRS. GIRIJA R
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. RENJITH M, NOW RESIDING AT 64/2766, KATTAPPILLY
HOUSE, BALAN MENON ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682017

¶11

BY ADV T.SAJI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

1MRS. GEETHA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O ANILKUMAR, ANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR
P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017

¶14

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031

¶15

SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2025:KER:29656

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.2183 of 2025

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 6 th day of March, 2025

¶22

The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A-2 order of the Appellate court, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court while convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order is issued in exercise of the power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as a condition for suspending the execution of petitioner’s sentence.

¶23

2025:KER:29656

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.2183 of 2025

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

submitted that in spite of pointing out patent illegalities in the judgment, the appellate court had mechanically directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount.

¶28

I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶29

As the order I propose to pass does not

¶30

prejudice the 1^st respondent in any manner, notice

¶31

to the 1^st respondent is dispensed with.

¶32

The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.

¶33

State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

¶34

[2023 (6) KHC 80], while upholding the power of the appellate court to impose the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148, has also held that, if the appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or

¶35

2025:KER:29656

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2183 of 2025

¶37

¶38

imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right to file appeal, exception can be made for reasons specifically recorded. This

¶39

Court in Baiju v. State of Kerala [2023 (7) KHC 669] clarified that the principle laid down in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) casts a duty on the appellate court to state reasons for insisting on the deposit of 20% of compensation/fine as a condition for suspending the sentence. As no such reason is stated in Annexure A-2, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶40

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure A-2 order is quashed. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall reconsider the petition for suspension of sentence and pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks of receipt of

¶41

¶42

2025:KER:29656

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.2183 of 2025

¶44

a copy of this order. Till such time, execution of the

¶45

non bailable warrant, if any, pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶46

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶47

SSK/06/03

¶48

¶49

2025:KER:29656

¶50

Crl.M.C.No.2183 of 2025

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2183/2025

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure A-1TRUE COPY OF C.C. NO. 91/2023 OF THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 20-02-2023

¶54

Annexure A-2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4TH
DECEMBER, 2024, OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM, IN
C.C NO. 91/2023

¶55

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶56

TRUE COPY

¶57

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mrs. Girija R v. Mrs. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Girija R v. Mrs. Geetha

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

P.M. Shaji, Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Sidharth, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Riyas, Vs the State of Kerala

N.C.Abraham, Vs State of Kerala

Shafeer, Vs State of Kerala

Sathi Devi, Vs State of Kerala