Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santokh Singh vs Brij Bhushan Jain (2025:Rj-Jd:28689) on 3 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28689]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4879/2025
Santokh Singh S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village
22 Ps Raisinghnagar, Police Station Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Brij Bhushan Jain S/o Kalwantrai, R/o Ward No. 11,
Oswatwal Mohalla, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
And
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4880/2025
Santokh Singh S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Village 22 Ps Raisinghnagar, Police Station Raisinghnagar, Dist.
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Brij Bhushan Jain S/o Kalwantrai, R/o Ward No. 11,
Oswatwal Mohalla, Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamaldeep Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/07/2025
By way of filing these criminal misc. petitions under Section
528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
18.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Nohar in Criminal Appeal Nos.30/2025 and 29/2025.
[2025:RJ-JD:28689] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4879/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar in the impugned order,
ordered the suspension of sentence awarded to the petitioner by
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in
the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
N.I. Act upon complying with the condition of depositing 20% of
the amount of compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner who is aged about 74 years is not in a position to
deposit the said amount of 20% of the compensation amount on
account of the financial difficulties. Learned counsel submitted that
imposition of the condition of depositing 20% of the amount of
compensation amounts to taking away the right of appeal of the
petitioner. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned orders be
quashed, to the extent of the condition imposing deposition of
20% of the amount of compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
dated 17.03.2025 in CRL.M.C.1327/2025 & CRL.M.A.5884/2025-
"Anuj Ahuja v. Sumitra Mittal".
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
Section 148 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"148.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an
appeal by the drawer against conviction under section
138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant
to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of
twenty percent of the fine or compensation
awarded by the trial Court:"
Provided that the amount payable under this sub-
section shall be in addition to any interim
compensation paid by the appellant under section
143A."
[2025:RJ-JD:28689] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4879/2025]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Jamboo
Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) SCC 446" has pleased to hold as under:-
" 6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive
interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.1.
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.1.
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
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 CrPC 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"
The Apex Court in its judgment titled as "Muskan
Enterprises & Anr. V. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046"
has held as under:-
"xxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that normally the
discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit
to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the
factual situation in every individual case, more so because an order
under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead,
retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit in a given
[2025:RJ-JD:28689] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4879/2025]
case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is exceptional) and
calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit. has to be
conceded."
Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced
through the 2018 amendment, empowers the Appellate Court to
mandate the deposit of atleast 20% of the compensation amount
by the accused as a condition for hearing an appeal against
conviction in cheque dishonor cases under Section 138. The
requirement of deposit under Section 148 of N.I. Act is a
safeguard meant to protect the rights of the complainant in cases
under Section 138. The provisions also aims to address the
prolonged litigation faced by the complainants and mitigate delay
in receiving compensation, ensuring the balance between the
accused persons right to appeal and the complainants right to
speedy trial.
In the opinion of this Court, waiver of condition of depositing
20% of the compensation amount, only on account of financial
difficulty of the convict would not only unjustly deprive the
complainant of compensation but would also divide the legislative
intent behind incorporation of Section 148 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, which aims at safeguarding by the Appellate
Courts process from frivolous or dilatory tactics. In the opinion of
this Court, the requirement to deposit the compensation amount
under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as a
condition for appeal is generally mandatory and cannot be waived
on mere asking of the accused. This Court is of the firm opinion
that the ground of financial difficulty raised by the accused in the
present case cannot be said to be an exceptional circumstance
and thus if not sufficient enough for carving out an exception from
[2025:RJ-JD:28689] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4879/2025]
the mandate contained under Section 148 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
Thus, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises
(supra) this Court is not inclined to waive of the condition of
depositing 20% of the compensation amount, as the same is
neither unjust or amounts to effectively taking away the right of
appeal of petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and thus calls for no interference by this
Court.
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petitions are
dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
66-67/himanshu-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
