Recently, the single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that while passing order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the court has to consider the condition of deposit of 20% will not be unjust but also, the fact whether the imposing condition would amount to deprivation of the right of the appeal of the appellant. Therefore, for passing the final order under Section 148 of the Act, 1881, the court can gather the required facts regarding the financial condition of the appellant.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, in which the applicant was convicted. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the applicant, and during the pendency of the court, the appellate court directed the appellant to deposit 20% of compensation. Furthermore, the order was challenged by the applicant by way of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC by which the court set aside the order of the appellate court and remanded the matter back to the appellate court to pass a fresh order, subject to the condition that applicant will deposit 10% of the fine. In compliance with the order passed by the Court under Section 482 CrPC the applicant had also deposited 10% of the compensation amount before the appellate court and thereafter moved an application that the condition to deposit 20% of compensation is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Then, the applicant was directed to file the source of income, ITR, if any, for the last five years. Aggrieved by this, the present application is filed.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant while relying upon the judgment titled Muskan Enterprises and Another vs. State of Punjab and Another submitted that the appellate court should have considered whether the condition to deposit 20% amount is unjust or not but the court below erroneously directed the applicant to submit his source of income which is not relevant.
Contentions of the Opposite Party:
The learned counsel for the Opposite Party contended that in order to assess the financial condition of the applicant, the applicant was directed to submit an ITR which is not illegal.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that in order to decide whether the case of the applicant falls under exceptional circumstances or not, it is necessary to consider the financial condition of the applicant and direct him to submit ITR for the last 5 years.
It was furthermore observed that while passing order under Section 148 of the Act, 1881, the Court has to consider the condition of a deposit of 20% will not be unjust but also, the fact whether the imposing condition would amount to deprivation of the right of the appeal of the appellant. Therefore, for passing the final order under Section 148 of the Act, 1881, the court can gather the required facts regarding the financial condition of the appellant.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the application.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Case No.:APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7574 of 2025
Advocates for the Applicant: Adv. Naman Agarwal, Adv. Nipun Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
