Mandatory deposit under cheque dishonour appeal regime upheld; waiver is exceptional and requires special reasons.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was construed purposively to support speedy disposal of cheque dishonour appeals, so the minimum deposit requirement was treated as the rule and waiver as an exception requiring special reasons. On the facts, the appellate court was found justified in directing deposit of 25% of the compensation amount while suspending sentence in the Section 138 appeal, because the petitioner had been heard, no exceptional circumstances were shown, and the order was interlocutory. The absence of elaborate reasons and reliance on the interim compensation provision in Section 143A did not justify interference. The direction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in directing deposit of 25% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 while suspending sentence in an appeal against conviction under Section 138, and whether the impugned order was vitiated for want of reasons or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 148, as amended, was construed purposively to advance the object of preventing delay in cheque dishonour matters. The expression "may" in the provision was held to operate as a rule, with departure from the minimum deposit requirement being an exception requiring special reasons. The Court found that the petitioner had been heard, no exceptional circumstances were shown, and the order under challenge was an interlocutory order passed pending appeal. Reliance on the decision dealing with interim compensation under Section 143A was distinguished. The Court also held that the absence of elaborate reasons did not justify interference on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit 25% of the compensation amount was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---