[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Murli Jethaliya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53264) on 8 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53264]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1566/2025
Murli Jethaliya S/o Ladu Lal, Aged About 39 Years, Proprietor Of
Ms. Saksham Construction Company R/o Near Bade Tempie
Rawla Chowck Gendliya Kotri Dist Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Radhe Shyam S/o Ram Sawroop, R/o C247 Ramanuj Kot
Sanjay Colony Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
08/12/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein is against the order dated
16.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
No.1, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.275/2025, against his
conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
whereby the application filed by the petitioner by imposing the
condition upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount
within 60 days for suspending of sentence.
2. The impugned order dated 16.09.2025 of learned Sessions
Court is primarily premised on the reasoning that as per Section
148 Negotiable Instruments Act, suspension of sentence can be
allowed if a minimum of at least 20% of the fine amount is paid to
the complainant.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:20:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53264] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1566/2025]
3. A perusal of the orders assailed herein reveals that the
learned Sessions Court fell in grave error in directing interim
payment of the 20% of fine amount under the impression that the
provision contained under Section 148 of N.I. Act is absolute in
nature and without compliance thereof, the application of the
petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence could not have been
allowed. In this regard, reference may be had to Apex Court
judgment rendered in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. : (2023) 10
SCC 446. The relevant thereof of is reproduced here in below :-
"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 Appellate Court considers the prayer under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. 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 4 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 Cr.P.C. 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.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:20:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53264] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1566/2025]
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."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a suffering from HIV disease which is a serious disease and he is
also in paralytic condition. Being so, he is not in a position to
deposit such a huge amount i.e. 20% the fine amount.
5. In the premise, he shall have to necessarily surrender for
being taken into custody. Therefore, he would not even be able to
defend his appeal during the pendency thereof. He further submits
that the liberty of the petitioner is at stake.
6. While, on the other hand, he is sanguine that he has a good
case in appeal. He will succeed in the same, but due to his
inability to pay he is not able to defend himself in the further
proceedings until he complies with the order impugned herein.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am in
agreement with the arguments canvassed by him.
8. In the premise, after perusing the impugned orders and the
case file, I am of the view that looking at the condition of the
petitioner, directing him to deposit 20% of the amount as per
impugned orders shall result in jeopardizing his appeal being
dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of
deposit. He seems to be in distress and has to be granted
indulgence in the larger interest of justice to enable him to defend
himself in the pending appeal.
9. As an upshot, keeping in view the ratio of Apex Court
judgment in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and in the light of the facts
and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated
16.09.2025 is set aside. Learned Sessions Judge shall proceed
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:20:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53264] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1566/2025]
with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and
dispose of the same in accordance with law.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
15-Ramesh/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:20:43 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
