[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite ... on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 645 of 2026
Ratnakar Nayak ........ Petitioner(s)
Ms. Samapika Mishra, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. ........ Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
25.03.2026
Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioner has assailed the order
dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Talcher in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2025 appended
hereto as Annexure-1.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had
availed a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2 to
meet his personal necessities. It is further contended that towards
discharged of the said liability, the Petitioner issued a cheque
bearing No. 183505, drawn on the State Bank of India, Khamar
5. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured
and returned unpaid by the Bank with the endorsement "funds
insufficient". Consequently, the Opposite Party No.2, being the
Complainant, instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act, which came to be registered as ICC Case No.23 of 2018 and is
presently pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Pallahara.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the
learned Magistrate, vide order dated 25.11.2025, disposed of the
aforesaid complaint case and directed the Petitioner to pay
compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the Opposite Party
No.2/complainant, without due and proper appreciation of the
documentary evidence on record.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred the
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2025 before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Talcher, along with an interlocutory application
seeking for bail and stay of realization of the compensation
amount. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge
was pleased to granted bail to the Petitioner, subject to the
condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount before
the court below. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court
seeking modification of the said condition.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed relied upon the
judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Anil
Mittal vs. State of UP and Another1, wherein the Hon'ble Court,
while considering a similar issue, was pleased to held as under:
"7. From the plain reading of Section 148(1) of the N.I. Act, the deposit
of 20 percent of the amount of fine/compensation as awarded by the trial
court, appears to be discretionary in nature. However, such discretion
ought to be exercised by the Appellate Court in exceptional
circumstances, Ordinary, no appeal could be entertained without the
said deposit and proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 148 of the N.I. Act
also provides that if any amount under Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act
was deposited by the accused/appellant, the amount which is required to
be deposited under Section 148(1) of the N.I. Act, is in addition to the
same and shall not be adjusted against the amount already paid during
the trial."
9. This Court is of the considered view that it is well-settled
principle of law that a statutory provision does not assume a
mandatory or directory character merely by use of the
expressions "shall" or "may". The true and import and nature of
such provision must be gathered from the object, context, and
scheme of the enactment. This legal position has been succinctly
reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bachahan Devi & Ors v.
Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Ors.2, where it was held that:
"31. It is well-settled that the use of word 'may' in a statutory provision
would not by itself show that the provision in directory in nature. In some
cases, the legislature may use the word 'may' as a matter of pure
conventional courtesy and yet intend a mandatory force. In order, therefore
to interpret the legal import of the word 'may', the court has to consider
various factors, the object and the scheme of the Act, the context and the
background against which the words have been used, the purpose and the
advantages sought to be achieved by the use of this word, and the like. It is
equally well-settled that where the word 'may' involves a discretion
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
2 Authentication
Reason:
AIR 2008 SC 1282
Location: OHC
Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:47:01
coupled with an obligation or where it confers a positive benefit to a
general class of subjects in a utility Act, or where the court advances a
remedy and suppresses the mischief, or where giving the words
discretionary significance would defeat the very object of the Act 'may'
should be interpreted to convey a mandatory force."
10. In view of the foregoing discussions and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, the application stands allowed. Accordingly, this
Court deems it appropriate to modify that part of the order dated
28.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Talcher in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2025, and directs the
Petitioner shall deposit 10% of the compensation amount before
the court below within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands disposed of in terms of the
observations and directions made hereinabove.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
