Court allows withdrawal of 30% of cheque amount under Negotiable Instruments Act, despite respondent's objection.

The court allowed the applicant to withdraw 30% of the cheque amount deposited by respondent no. 2, emphasizing compliance with the Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the respondent's objection based on a prior withdrawal application, the court found the current application maintainable. Interpreting Section 148(1) of the Act, the court asserted its jurisdiction to permit withdrawal during the appeal process, with the obligation to repay if necessary. Ultimately, the court granted the applicant's request, considering her financial needs and the legal framework.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for release of 30% cheque amount pending revision application.
2. Maintainability of the application based on previous withdrawal application.
3. Interpretation of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to allow withdrawal of deposited amount.

Issue 1: Application for release of 30% cheque amount pending revision application:
The applicant sought the release of 30% of the cheque amount pending a revision application. The applicant, a divorcee with a son residing abroad, claimed financial constraints and the need for the money to sustain livelihood. The respondent no. 2 objected, citing a previous withdrawal application by the applicant. The respondent no. 2 had deposited the required amount as per court orders. The court considered the grounds for withdrawal provided by the applicant and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the application based on previous withdrawal application:
The respondent no. 2 argued that the applicant had previously withdrawn an application unconditionally and without court permission, making the current application not maintainable. However, the court found no suppression by the applicant regarding the withdrawal of the amount. The court referred to previous orders allowing withdrawal of certain applications and stated that withdrawal of a previous application did not debar the applicant from seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court analyzed Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which empowers the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum sum pending appeal against conviction under section 138. The court emphasized the provision's applicability during the pendency of the appeal and the authority to release the deposited amount to the complainant. The court highlighted that the revisional jurisdiction could allow withdrawal of the deposited amount as per the Act.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the court to allow withdrawal of deposited amount:
The court, considering the provisions of Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, permitted the applicant to withdraw the 30% amount deposited by the respondent no. 2. The court clarified that the complainant would need to repay the amount if the respondent no. 2 was acquitted. The court asserted its revisional jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the deposited amount, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application, permitting the applicant to withdraw the specified amount deposited by the respondent no. 2. The court emphasized the legal provisions, jurisdiction, and the applicant's circumstances in reaching its decision.

---