Cheque dishonour appeal deposits must track trial court compensation, not the disputed cheque amount, under Section 148.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was applied purposively to curb delay in cheque dishonour appeals and secure payment pending appeal. The Gujarat HC held that the appellate court may direct deposit of not less than twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, and that the statutory reference is to the trial court's award rather than the disputed cheque amount. The non obstante clause was held to override the general position under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Because the trial court had awarded compensation, that figure formed the correct basis for deposit, and the request for enhancement beyond twenty per cent was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the appellate court could direct deposit of 20% of the disputed cheque amount, or whether the deposit had to be linked to the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, and whether the complainant was entitled to seek enhancement of the deposit.

Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as introduced by the 2018 amendment, was applied purposively to advance the object of discouraging delay in cheque dishonour appeals and to secure payment pending appeal. The provision was read as conferring discretion on the appellate court to order a deposit of not less than twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, with the statutory focus being on the amount awarded by the trial court and not on the disputed cheque amount. The non obstante clause was held to override the general position under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, the trial court had awarded both fine and compensation, and the appropriate basis for deposit was compensation rather than the cheque amount. The request for enhancement beyond twenty per cent was not accepted.

Conclusion: The appellate order was corrected to require deposit of twenty per cent of the compensation awarded by the trial court, and the challenge to the deposit condition as well as the request for enhancement beyond that level failed.

---