Conviction under Section 138 NI Act; sentence suspended on appeal subject to deposit of 25% of compensation under Section 148 NI Act. On the petitioner's failure to deposit within time, the lower appellate court vacated the suspension. The High Court upheld that order and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025 Crl.MP(MD)No.14631 of 2025
Shanmugam, S/o.Ramasamy, Door No.1/321, Pandiyan Nagar, 5th Street Karur 639 092
Revision Petitioner
Vs
M/s.Bhuvaneshwar Finance, represented by its Managing Partner, K.K.Kumar, S/o.K.Kaliyappan No.372, Vaiyapuri Nagar, 2nd Cross, Karur 639002 Respondent
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (businesses), to set aside the order dated, 23.06.2025, made in Crl.MP.No.582 of 2025 in CA.No.80 of 2025, by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.PC, seeking suspension of sentence due to non-compliance of the condition of depositing 25% of the cheque amount.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh
1/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
ORDER
2/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
come forward to repay the cheque amount. Hence, the Respondent preferred a complaint in STC.No.597 of 2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, FTC @ Magisterial Level, Karur, against the Revision Petitioner.
3/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
failing which, the Petition shall stands dismissed automatically. The above said condition is imposed by exercising powers under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
Petitioner and considered his submissions and also perused the entire materials available on record.
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
against the Revision Petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,10,000/being the cheque amount before the Judicial Magistrate, FTC @ Magisterial Level, Karur, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a compensation of Rs.11,10,000/-, being the cheque amount, to the Respondent, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. In the appeal in CA.No.80 of 2025, filed before the lower appellate court, against the said judgement of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner had filed the present Petition, in Crl.MP.No.582 of 2025, seeking suspension of sentence.
6/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
adjourned to 23.06.2025.
of time granted by this Court to the Revision Petitioner from 21.04.2025, the Revision Petitioner did not comply with the said conditional order dated, 21.04.2025, by depositing the 25% of the compensation amount. It was also observed by the lower appellate court that even on 23.06.2025, Revision Petitioner did not come forward to deposit the said amount. Thus, the period for deposit of such amount fixed by the lower appellate court, as contemplated under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had also expired. Hence, the lower appellate court, relying on the judgement and order, of the Honourable Supreme Court, dated 08.01.2020, rendered in the case of Surinder Singh Deswa @ Col.S.S.Deswal Vs. Virender Gandhi in
Criminal Appeal Nos.1936-1963 of 2019 , had dismissed the Petition, seeking suspension of sentence, which is challenged in this Criminal Revision Case.
“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
7/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
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:
Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.
(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.”
10.As per Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on an appeal by a Drawer against the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.
11.As per Section 148(2), the amount referred to in sub-section (1) has to
8/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days, as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
“19. It is for the Appellate Court, who has granted suspension of sentence to take call on non-compliance and take appropriate decision. What order is to be passed by the Appellate Court in such circumstances is for the Appellate Court to consider and decide. However, non-compliance of the condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence, as having been vacated.”
9/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had imposed conditions for granting suspension of sentence, namely, (1) the Revision Petitioner shall deposit 25% of the compensation amount, as ordered by the Trial Court and (2) such amount shall be deposited on or before 09.06.2025 i.e. within thirty days. Admittedly, the said conditions were not complied with by the Revision Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed, dismissing the Petition, seeking suspension of sentence.
10/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
conditions of suspension of sentence in time. This Court is of the view that the impugned order, dismissing the Petition, seeking suspension of sentence on the ground of non compliance of the condition of suspension of sentence, which is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having vacated, is maintainable and it does not warrant any interference by this Court, as there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Further, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as there is no illegality or perversity in the same.
11/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
Revision Petitioner/ accused.
16.10.2025
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Neutral Citation Srcm
To
12/13
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Srcm
Crl.RC(MD)No.1342 of 2025
16.10.2025
13/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court could dismiss the suspension-of-sentence petition for non-compliance with the Section 148 NI Act condition of depositing 25% of the compensation amount.
Whether the revision petitioner deserved one more opportunity to deposit the amount on grounds of financial hardship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surinder Singh Deswa @ Col.S.S.Deswal Vs. Virender GandhiRelied on¶12
Criminal Appeal Nos.1936-1963 of 2019
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Shanmugam
M/s.Bhuvaneshwar Finance, represented by its Managing Partner, K.K.Kumar
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
