Supreme Court: No pre-deposit needed for criminal revision petitions. Deposit not mandatory.

The Supreme Court held that there is no mandatory statutory requirement for pre-deposit to maintain a revision petition before the High Court. The Court overturned the High Court's decision that the deposit of the fine amount was a prerequisite for hearing the criminal revision petition. The parties were allowed to pursue the revision petition without the condition of pre-deposit, with the Court emphasizing that the decision did not affect the case's merits, leaving all aspects open for the High Court's consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in making the deposit of fine amount a condition precedent for entertaining a criminal revision petitionRs.
2. Whether there is a mandatory statutory requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining a revision petition before the High CourtRs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question challenged the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020, which imposed a condition that the deposit of the fine amount shall be a prerequisite for entertaining the criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The accused-appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to a fine of Rs.6,00,000 with a provision for simple imprisonment in case of default. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's order. The High Court, while considering the revision petition, ruled that the petition would not be entertained unless the fine amount was deposited by the appellant.

2. The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, examined the legal position and observed that there is no mandatory statutory requirement for pre-deposit to maintain a revision petition before the High Court. The Court emphasized that while the ultimate decision on the revision petition's merits depends on the examination of the matter in terms of revisional jurisdiction, making the deposit of the fine amount a condition precedent for even hearing the petition was not justified. The Court set aside the High Court's order dated 15.01.2021, allowing the parties to pursue the matter in Criminal Revision Petition No.515 of 2020 before the High Court.

3. The Court clarified that its decision did not comment on the case's merits and left all aspects related to the revision petition open for consideration by the High Court. Additionally, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court suggested that the High Court assign a reasonable priority to the revision petition and make efforts to reach a final decision promptly. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting the parties the opportunity to proceed with the revision petition without the condition of pre-deposit of the fine amount.

---