Dismissed¶25

Basanta@Basanta Kumar Mallick v. Khagendra Prasad Behera

Orissa HC12 Sept 2025CRLREV/37/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLREV No.37 of 2025 (order dated 12.09.2025); R.K. Pattanaik, J. Keywords: Section 148 NI Act; exemption from 20% statutory deposit of compensation; BPL category claim rejected as BPL card stood in father's name (Khalu Mallick); Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. applied; appeal against conviction in 1.C.C. Case No. 494 of 2019, J.M.F.C. Balasore; impugned order Annexure-1 dated 05.12.2024 upheld; revision dismissed. Counsel: D.R. Swain for petitioner; P.K. Ray for opposite party No.1.

What did the court decide?

The learned Court below did not seriously err nor commit any illegality in declining the exemption sought on the petitioner's claim that he belongs to the BPL category; no special case was made out for exemption from the statutory deposit. ¶22

Basanta@Basanta Kumar Mallick Vs Khagendra Prasad Behera — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.37 of 2025

¶3

Basanta@Basanta Kumar …. Petitioner Mallick

¶4

Mr. D.R. Swain, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Khagendra Prasad Behera & …. Opposite Parties another

¶7

Mr. P.K. Ray, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

12.09.2025

None appears for the petitioners at the time of call.

¶15

Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for opposite party

¶16

No.1.

¶17

Instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-1, whereby, an application seeking exemption from 20% deposit of the compensation amount as required under Section 148 of the N.I. Act was rejected.

¶18

The petitioner has filed the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence in 1.C.C. Case No. 494 of 2019. Of learned J.M.F.C., Balasore and therein, such an application was moved but it has been disposed of vide Annexure-1 declining any such exemption in payment of the statutory deposit. Considering the grounds advanced, it is made to reveal that

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

such exemption was sought for by the petitioner on the ground that he belongs to BPL category but it was not accepted by the learned Court below since the BPL card produced by him was in the name of his father, namely, Khalu Mallick.

¶21

Mr. Ray, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 submits that no exception was made out by the petitioner while demanding such exemption. The further submission is that the learned Court below rightly directed 20% of the compensation awarded as the statutory deposit in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-1 is perfectly justified.

¶22

Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and the plea of the petitioner, recording the submission of Mr. Ray, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, the Court is of the conclusion that the learned Court below did not seriously err or commit any illegality in declining such exemption in favour of the petitioner, a demand, which was based on the claim that he belongs to BPL category. As no special case was made out and since the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others outlines the circumstances, when exemption may be claimed and it is not satisfied, the impugned decision dated 5^th December, 2024 as at Annexure-1 cannot be said to be erroneous. In other words, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

¶23