Satyajyoti Mohanty vs Kishan Kumar Mohapatra And ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10453 Ori

Orissa High Court

Satyajyoti Mohanty vs Kishan Kumar Mohapatra And ..... ... on 26 November, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      CRLMC No.4953 of 2025

                 Satyajyoti Mohanty                      .....                Petitioner
                                                                  Represented By Adv. -
                                                                  Bijaya Kumar Sahoo

                                              -versus-

                 Kishan Kumar Mohapatra and          .....             Opposite Parties
                 another
                                                                 Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC


                                     CORAM:
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                   MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

26.11.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount as awarded by the learned trial Court at the time of admission of the appeal under Section 148 of the N.I. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset, referring to

order dated 25.09.2025, contended that the convict Appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2025. On 25.09.2025 the record was put up before the Court for removal of the defect and hearing for admission. After removal of the defect the matter was taken up for admission. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that by virtue of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 while admitting the appeal, the learned trial Court has mechanically invoked the provision contained in Section 148 of N.I. Act and the Petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of the awarded amount towards compensation. It appears that no opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to put forth his case at the time of exercise of such power to grant interim compensation under Section 148 of N.I. Act. The order further reveals that the same was passed even before issuance of notice to the opposite party- complainant.

5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court observed that the issue that fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to the interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and the exercise of the power by the Appellate Court under such Section for grant of compensation. It has been observed in the said judgment that normally the Court should grant the interim compensation under Section 148 of N.I. Act. However, an exception has also been carved out to the extent that in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will

be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the Appellant, the condition with regard to the payment of 20% of compensation can very well be waived by the Appellate Court. It has also been observed that while exercising the power under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of the sentence, the learned Appellate Court shall consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of fine/compensation amount. It would be relevant to quote the relevant portion of the judgment, i.e. Para-6 to 12 for reference;

"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the Appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.

7. Therefore, when Appellant Court considers the prayer Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

8. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the Appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the

Appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an Accused applies Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the Appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.

10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute Rule which does not accommodate any exception.

11. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, at this stage, states that the Appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court.

12. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the Appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the Revision Petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored Revision Petitions, the Interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate."

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand did not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra).

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2025, this Court observes that the procedure as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), specifically in Para-6 to 12 of the judgment which have been quoted herein below, have not been followed in the present case. At least the same is not manifest from the order dated 25.09.2025. In view of the aforesaid finding of this Court, this Court is of the view that the order dated 25.09.2025 with regard to the direction for payment of 20% of the fine/compensation under Section 148 of N.I. Act is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to reconsider the issue of grant of compensation of 20% under Section 148 of N.I. Act after providing opportunity to the convict-Appellant as well as the complainant. It is needless to mention here that the learned trial Court shall pass necessary orders under Section 148 of N.I. Act after taking into consideration the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-6 to 12 of the judgment in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today's order.

8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

                                                      ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
                                                                 Judge

S.K. Rout




            Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
            Date: 28-Nov-2025 17:43:34                                    Page 5 of 5.