Disposed¶25

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Sept 2025CRLREV/609/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State of Odisha; Orissa High Court at Cuttack; CRLREV No.609 of 2025; decided 11.09.2025 by Justice R.K. Pattanaik; conviction under Section 138 NI Act (ICC Case No.04 of 2024); refusal of waiver of 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act (Annexure-3 in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025); exceptional case standard per Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC (Criminal Appeal No.2741 of 2023, Apex Court); liberty to reapply for waiver/reduction; A.K. Paul for petitioner; P.K. Ray, AGA for State.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to renew the prayer for waiver/reduction of the 20% statutory deposit through a fresh application, to be considered by the learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025. ¶25

Satyanarayan Purohit Vs State of Odisha — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to renew the prayer for waiver/reduction of the 20% statutory deposit through a fresh application, to be considered by the learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order (Annexure-3) declining to waive or reduce the 20% deposit of compensation required under Section 148 NI Act was erroneous, given that no exceptional case or supporting material had been placed before the learned court below.

¶19

Court's answer

The impugned order (Annexure-3) refusing waiver of the 20% deposit is not erroneous; it was the petitioner's own duty to submit material before the court below demanding waiver or reduction in the amount to be deposited in compliance of Section 148 NI Act.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Consistent with the Apex Court's enunciation in Jamboo Bhandari (Criminal Appeal No.2741 of 2023) that an exceptional case must be made out demanding waiver or reduction of the deposit, in absence of any such materials before the learned court below the impugned order at Annexure-3 is perfectly justified.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh application before the learned court below demanding reduction or even waiver of the deposit, for a fresh decision thereon.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (Justice R.K. Pattanaik), CRLREV No.609 of 2025, decided 11.09.2025 — Revision against the appellate order (Annexure-3) in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025 refusing waiver of the 20% deposit of compensation mandated by Section 148 NI Act, arising from conviction under Section 138 NI Act in ICC Case No.04 of 2024. Held: the refusal was not erroneous — the application contained no averment and no exceptional circumstance was pleaded before the court below, and it was for the petitioner to have submitted such material; this accords with the Supreme Court's position in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No.2741 of 2023) that an exceptional case must be made out for waiver or reduction. Revision disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for waiver or reduction before the learned court below.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.609 of 2025

¶2

Satyanarayan Purohit …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. A.K. Paul, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

…. Opposite Party

¶7

Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

11.09.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annexure-3 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025 on the grounds stated.

¶16

The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in ICC Case No.04 of 2024 against which Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025 was filed and therein, an application was moved by demanding waiver of the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as required under Section 148 of the NI Act but it has been rejected as per Annexure-3.

¶17

Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-3 and according to the learned court below, no exceptional case was made out by the petitioner so as to warrant exercise of

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

discretion vis-à-vis waiver of the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation as awarded in ICC Case No.04 of 2024.

¶20

In course of hearing, Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unable to arrange the statutory deposit of 20% for personal difficulties including illness of his mother, hence, therefore, he should be directed to deposit 10% of the compensation instead. No such plea was raised before the learned court below. As per Annexure-3, not a single averment was made in the application received from the petitioner and in absence of any such exceptional circumstances, it was not considered proper to waive the condition. On the face value, the impugned order as at Annexure-3 does not appear to be erroneous as it was the duty of the petitioner to submit any such material demanding either waiver or reduction in the amount to be deposited in compliance of Section 148 of the NI Act. Having said that, the Court is also the view that the petitioner should be granted liberty to move the learned court below once again with an application for a decision thereon.

¶21

The Court is alive to the legal position as enunciated by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others (Criminal Appeal No.2741 of 2023) that an exceptional case is to be made out demanding waiver or reduction in the amount, which the petitioner is required to comply, hence, therefore, in absence of any such materials before the learned court below, the impugned order at Annexure-3 is perfectly justified and at

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

the same time, as earlier stated, liberty should be granted to him to submit a fresh application demanding such reduction or even the waiver.

¶24

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to renew the prayer with a fresh application in the light of the direction as aforesaid for being considered by the learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2025.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶28

TUDU

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 12-Sep-2025 12:11:10

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Purohit v. State of Odisha

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

Mir Adil Ali(Raju) Vs Udayanath Sahoo

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Pradhan

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Padhan

Mithila Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Prabha Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Hrushikesh Nayak Vs State of Odisha