Appellate courts must generally order payment deposit pending Section 138 appeal under Section 148 Negotiable Instruments Act

Kerala HC interpreted Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding appellate court powers to order payment pending appeal against Section 138 conviction. Following Supreme Court precedent in Surinder Singh Deswal, the court held that while Section 148 uses "may," it should generally be construed as "shall." Appellate courts must typically direct deposit of prescribed percentage of fine or compensation awarded by trial court. Only in exceptional cases with special reasons can courts refrain from issuing such direction. The provision creates exception to general power under Section 389 CrPC for unconditional sentence suspension. Applications disposed.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the power of an Appellate Court to order payment pending an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Act.

Summary:
The judgment pertains to the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically addressing the power of the Appellate Court to order payment pending an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Act. The cases were referred to the High Court by the Chief Justice based on a learned Single Judge's order. The issue revolved around the nature and extent of the statutory discretion conferred on the Appellate Court in ordering payments pending appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Act and the requirement of furnishing reasons for such orders.

In analyzing the statutory provision and considering the precedents set by the Supreme Court in previous cases, the High Court concluded that the Appellate Court has the discretion to either order the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court or to waive such deposit. If the deposit is required, it should not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. Additionally, if the Appellate Court directs the appellant to deposit an amount exceeding 20%, further reasons must be provided for such a decision.

The interpretation drawn by the High Court was based on a harmonious reading of the Supreme Court judgments in Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari, aligning with the amended Section 148 of the Act and its objectives as outlined in the Amendment Act No.20 of 2018. While the cases could have been remitted back to the Single Judge for disposal, the High Court decided to set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Court due to lack of reasons and directed the Appellate Court to pass fresh orders within three months from the date of the judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court provided a detailed interpretation of the Appellate Court's discretion under Section 148 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for decisions and ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions and objectives of the Amendment Act.

---