Petition dismissed for failing to deposit required amount under Section 148(1) for sentence suspension in cheque dishonour case

The Kerala HC dismissed a petition challenging conviction and sentence in a dishonour of cheque case. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for sentence suspension. The court held that the petitioner's application did not mention special reasons for exemption from deposit, merely stating the cause of action arose before Section 148 came into force. Relying on Surinder Singh Deswal, the court confirmed Section 148 has retrospective operation. The appellate court properly directed deposit of minimum 20% compensation amount, and non-compliance justified vacation of sentence suspension.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and propriety of Ext. P4 order passed by the Court of Session, Thalassery u/s Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court of Session, Thalassery admitted the appeal and allowed the petitioner's application for suspension of the sentence on depositing 20% of the compensation ordered by the trial court and executing a bond. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that special reasons were not considered for not directing her to deposit 20% of the compensation.

The court examined Section 148(1) of the Act, which empowers the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The court clarified that the appellate court is generally required to direct the deposit of 20% of the compensation, and special reasons need to be provided for not doing so. The petitioner's counsel cited a Supreme Court case indicating that special reasons could exempt the appellant from depositing the amount.

However, the court emphasized that it is the appellant's responsibility to point out special reasons for not depositing the amount under Section 148(1) of the Act. In this case, the petitioner did not mention any special reasons in the application for suspension of the sentence. The court noted that the provision of Section 148 has retrospective operation, as confirmed by recent Supreme Court decisions.

Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the Ext. P4 order, which directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation. The court dismissed the petition but extended the time for depositing the amount.

---