Orissa High Court
Smt. Sabita @ Smt. Sabita Kalla vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 6 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.850 of 2025
Smt. Sabita @ Smt. Sabita Kalla .... Petitioner
Mr. S.N. Mishra 4, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.11.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the
same is not necessary.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 9th September, 2025 passed in
connection with Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2025 by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, whereby, an
application as per Annexure-1 demanding exemption from
making deposit of 20% of the compensation amount has been
declined and rejected.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the cheque in question has not been issued by the
petitioner, hence, there is a good chance of success in the
appeal against the order of conviction and sentence in 1CC
Case No.88 of 2020. The further submission is that in the
appeal, the petitioner filed the application i.e. Annexure-1
demanding full exemption of 20% of the compensation
amount from being deposited but it has led to the passing of
the impugned order dated 9th September, 2025 (Annexure-2),
which is not legally tenable. In support of such contention,
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel cited the following decisions,
such as, Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. M.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. and others 2023 (4) Crimes
1(SC) and Muskan Enterprises and another Vrs. The State
of Punjab and another in Criminal Appeal No.5491 of 2024
disposed of on 19th December, 2024. While denying the
liability of the petitioner with the plea that the cheque was not
issued by her and that apart, the signature thereon was found
to be incomplete and duly intimated by the bank, Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel further cited a decision of the Apex Court in
Vinod Tanna and another Vrs. Zaher Siddiqui and others
(2002) 7 SCC 541 to contend that no offence under Section
138 of the NI Act is made out, hence, therefore, the impugned
order of conviction and sentence is legally untenable.
5. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-2.
6. Gone through the contents of the application filed
under Section 148 of the NI Act.
7. The demand is for exemption to make the deposit of
20% of compensation amount and for that, the application was
moved by the petitioner as per Annexure-1 but, the learned
court below denied the same. The submission of Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that such deposit is not a
mandatory compliance and furthermore, the Court of appeal
has a discretionary power of exercise to consider exemption
provided an exception is carved out in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra).
8. The Court finds that the learned court below did not
assign any reason while considering the application of the
petitioner as at Annexure-1. According to above decision
followed in Muskan Enterprises (supra), it is the settled legal
position that a Court of appeal has the powers to consider
exemption in full or part, while dealing with a demand
towards the same. Since no reason is assigned in Annexure-2
and as to whether, the petitioner could able make out a case,
while requesting exemption from depositing 20% of the
compensation amount, the Court is of the conclusion that the
application i.e. Annexure-1 has not been dealt with in the light
of the settled law discussed herein above. In fact, according to
the Court, the impugned order dated 9th September, 2025 at
Annexure-2 is without any reason considering the plea of the
petitioner. It is to reiterate that jurisdiction under Section 148
of NI Act is exercisable and a Court is to consider whether
any such deposit may be waived out in full or part provided
the appellant carves out an exception and in the case hand, the
petitioner claimed so, which has not been taken judicial notice
of by the learned court below in the manner law contemplates,
hence, therefore, the decision needs a revisit.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-2 in
Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2025 is hereby set aside with a
direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak
to reconsider the application i.e. Annexure-1 restored to file
and to dispose it of in the light of the observations made
herein above and settled legal position enunciated in Jamboo
Bhandari followed by Muskan Enterprises (supra) and to
pass a reasoned order thereafter but at the earliest preferably
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and till such time, any such order is passed
in terms of Section 148 of the NI Act, the execution connected
to and arising from 1CC Case No.88 of 2020 shall be
deferred.
11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules and in
course of the day.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
