Orissa High Court
Bijoya Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Orissa And Another ..... ... on 23 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4059 of 2025
Bijoya Kumar Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Niranjan Panda
-versus-
State Of Orissa and another ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
23.10.2025
Order No.
04. 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 of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
read with Section 528 of BNSS of 2023. The Petitioner seeks
modification of the condition imposed by the learned Appellate
Court i.e. the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Khurda in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the present Petitioner who was an accused in ICC Case No. 46 of
2024 for alleged commission of an offence punishable under section
138 of N.I. Act, faced trial before the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Tangi. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 08.01.2025 of the learned
J.M.F.C., Tangi, the Petitioner was found guilty and has been
convicted for commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 08.01.2025 in ICC
Case No.46 of 2024, the Petitioner has already filed an appeal before
the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda and the same
has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2025. In the above
noted criminal appeal, the Petitioner has already been released on
bail by the learned trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by order on the learned trial Court under
Section 148 of N.I. Act directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing a present application. Vide order dated 17.09.2024, the
Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the
like amount. The trial Court also directed to the Petitioner to deposit
20% of the compensation amount and the operation of the impugned
judgment has been stayed. While passing aforesaid order, the
learned trial Court has taken note of the judgment in Stanny Felix
Pinto vs. Jangid Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, reported in
(2001)2 SCC 416 and Surendir Singh Deswal vs. Virendar
Gandhi, reported in 2019(11)SCC 341 and judgment reported in
(2020)2 SCC 514. The learned trial Court has held that the direction
to deposit 20% of compensation amount in terms of section 148 of
N.I. Act, will not be unjust and the same will not amount to
deprivation of right of appeal of the Petitioner. In reply to the
aforesaid judgment cited by the learned trial Court, learned counsel
for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446I and
contended that in the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh
Deswal (supra) to the effect that subject to deposit of minimum 20%
of the compensation amount the appeal shall be entertained is not
mandatory for the accused and the exception in the shape of
exemption of 20% of minimum amount deposit is still available to
the accused. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provision
contained in section 148 of N.I. Act requires purposive interpretation
of the law. It has also been held that normally the Appellate Court
would be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided
in Section 148 of N.I. Act. However, when the provision of
depositing in 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of
N.I. Act stands in the way of the Petitioner applying for an appeal, if
the Appellate Court is satisfied that such condition is unjust and
might amount to deprivation of right of the Petitioner to appeal, the
Appellate Court may extend such exemption to the Petitioner in
appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded. Moreover, in the event
the learned trial Court is of the view that such exception from the
general rule of the deposit 20% is to be extended in favour of the
accused-appellant, the same can only be done by recording the
reasons for extending such exemption to the accused-appellant.
This has also been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) that while considering the application for
bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court is duty bound
to consider whether the case of accused-appellant falls within the
exceptional case which warrants the grant of suspension of sentence
without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% compensation
amount.
6. On careful analysis of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, further on perusal of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been referred to by the learned
Appellate Court in its order dated 17.09.2025 and taking note of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari
(supra), this Court is of the view that the matter requires
reconsideration by the learned trial Court in terms of the judgment in
Jamboo Bhandari (supra). Accordingly, the direction contained in
order dated 17.09.2025 with regard to deposit of 20% of
compensation amount in terms of section 148 of N.I. Act is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court. The
Petitioner is granted liberty to move an application seeking
exemption by citing reasons and in such eventuality, the learned trial
Court shall consider the prayer of the Petitioner for such exemption
keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). It is further directed that in the
event Petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the
date of this order, the learned trial Court shall do well to consider
such application within four weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the CRLMC stands
disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 25-Oct-2025 16:48:49
