Condition Of Pre-Deposit U/S 148 Negotiable Instruments Act Can't Be Used To Jeopardise Convict's Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be imposed in a situation where the condition of depositing 20% of the fine would amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of a person convicted under Section 138.

Section 148, NI Act, provides that in an appeal by a convict of cheque dishonour, the Appellate court may order the appellant to deposit minimum 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition against an order of the Sessions judge in which petitioner's application for suspension of sentence in a pending appeal against her conviction was allowed subject to her depositing 20% of the fine amount.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was poor daily wage worker who was not in a position to deposit the amount. It was submitted that she would have to surrender for being taken into custody and would not even be able to defend her appeal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that a perusal of the impugned order revealed that the Sessions Court made a "grave error" under the impression that Section 148 was absolute in nature.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2023) in which it was held that Section 148 should be given a purposive interpretation and where the court was satisfied that imposition of the condition would deprive the appellant of their right to appeal, exception could be made after recording reasons.

“When Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount.”

In this background, the Court observed that looking at the financial condition of the petitioner, directing her to deposit 20% of the amount would result in jeopardizing her appeal being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of deposit. The Court held that,

“She seems to be in financial distress and has to be granted indulgence in the larger interest of justice to enable her to defend herself in the pending appeal.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Sessions judge was directed to proceed with hearing the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit.

Title: Asha Devi v Narayan Keer & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

Click Here To Read/Download Order