Rabindra Kumar Swain vs Manindra Nath Jena .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1190 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rabindra Kumar Swain vs Manindra Nath Jena .... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                CRLMC No.1717 of 2025

                              Rabindra Kumar Swain          ....                    Petitioner(s)

                                                                      Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv.
                                                          -versus-
                              Manindra Nath Jena            ....              Opposite Party(s)


                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                        ORDER

Order No. 10.02.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard.

3. By filing this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the

Petitioner seeks waiver of the direction to deposit 20% of the

compensation amount i.e. Rs.9,00,000/- (rupees nine lakhs), vide

order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Jajpur in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2025. Signature Not Verified 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contends that Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer

the present Petitioner, who was an accused in 1 C.C. Case No.204 Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 19:09:38

of 2021 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., Jajpur Road. The Petitioner has been convicted vide the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2025

passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road for the offence under

Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period

of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order

of sentence, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.23 of

2025 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur. The said

appeal was admitted and the sentence was suspended. However,

while admitting the appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

Jajpur vide order dated 19.04.2025, directed the Petitioner to

deposit 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section 148

of the N.I. Act.

6. Assailing the aforesaid direction relating to deposit of 20% of

the compensation amount, the present petition has been filed

before this Court.

7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 19.04.2025, it reveals

that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur suspended the

sentence imposed against the Petitioner and enlarged him on bail

on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand)

with one fit and solvent surety for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It further reveals that the

Petitioner had filed a petition seeking waiver of the statutory

deposit under Section 148(1) of the N.I. Act, which was rejected.

The learned Appellate Court observed that the Petitioner is

engaged in tyre business, so, no exceptional circumstances were

made out to deviate from the mandate of Section 148(1) of the

N.I. Act and, accordingly, directed the Petitioner to deposit the

20% of compensation amount.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, placing reliance on the

decision of the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. Madhya

Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.1

contends that though Section 148 of the N.I. Act empowers the

Appellate Court to direct deposit of 20% of the compensation

amount, such power is discretionary in nature. He further

submits that the provision contained in Section 148 of N.I. Act

requires purposive interpretation of the law. It is further

submitted that where the Appellate Court would ordinarily be

permitted to direct the appellant to deposit 20 percent of the

amount awarded, there could be exceptional circumstances. Such

circumstance would apply only when they would unfairly hinder

or effectively block the appellant's right to appeal. The Supreme

Court had further stated that such exceptions must be backed by

properly recorded the reasons.

9. On careful analysis of the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the Petitioner taking note of the judgment of the

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, that part of the order dated 19.04.2025 with regard

to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section

(2023) 10 SCC 4461

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 Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). It

is further directed that in the event the 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.

10. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the CRLMC stands

disposed of.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Sipun