Amended Section 148 applies to pending cheque dishonour appeals, and a deposit condition can override Section 357(2) CrPC.

A revision challenging conviction and sentence was not maintainable where the statutory appeal was already pending, because the appeal was the proper forum to reassess evidence and test the trial court's findings. The amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held applicable to pending appeals arising from complaints filed before the amendment, on the basis that the provision is procedural and meant to reduce delay in cheque dishonour matters. Its non obstante clause was treated as overriding Section 357(2) CrPC during the appeal, so the appellate court could require deposit of 30% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspension of sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision could be entertained against the conviction and sentence when the statutory appeal was already pending before the Sessions Court; (ii) whether amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied to appeals arising from complaints filed before the amendment, and whether the appellate court could direct deposit of 30% of the fine or compensation despite Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the revision could be entertained against the conviction and sentence when the statutory appeal was already pending before the Sessions Court.

Analysis: The revisionist had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy against the conviction. The pending appeal was the proper forum for reappraisal of evidence and challenge to the trial court's findings. A parallel revision could not be used to assail the same conviction and sentence while the appeal remained pending.

Conclusion: The challenge to the trial court's conviction and sentence in revision was not maintainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied to appeals arising from complaints filed before the amendment, and whether the appellate court could direct deposit of 30% of the fine or compensation despite Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The amendment was held to be procedural and intended to curb delay in cheque dishonour litigation and provide interim relief to the payee. Applying a purposive interpretation, the amended provision was held applicable even to appeals against convictions arising from complaints instituted before the amendment came into force. The opening non obstante clause in Section 148 displaced reliance on Section 357(2) during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court was therefore competent to require deposit of a minimum amount as a condition while considering suspension of sentence.

Conclusion: The amended Section 148 applied to the pending appeal, and the direction to deposit 30% of the fine or compensation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in both respects, and the order of the appellate court was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies to pending appeals against convictions under Section 138 even where the complaint was filed earlier, and it authorises a mandatory deposit condition notwithstanding Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---