Mandatory 20% deposit under cheque dishonour appeal provision upheld as an enforceable condition despite the word "may".

In an appeal against conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 148 was construed purposively to require the Appellate Court to direct deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation. Although the provision uses the word "may", the non obstante clause, the minimum-deposit threshold, and the object of discouraging delay in cheque dishonour litigation made the requirement mandatory in substance. The court held that treating the provision as wholly discretionary would defeat its legislative purpose and the protection intended for the complainant during the appeal. The deposit direction was therefore upheld, and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Appellate Court can decline to direct deposit of the minimum 20% amount under Section 148 of that Act on the ground that the provision uses the expression "may".

Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted with a non obstante clause and prescribes that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order deposit of a sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation. The statutory object is to discourage delay in cheque dishonour litigation and to protect the complainant during pendency of the appeal. Reading the provision as wholly discretionary would make the minimum-deposit requirement ineffective and defeat the legislative purpose. The expression "may" in the context of a provision prescribing a minimum mandatory deposit was therefore construed purposively as imposing an obligation, consistent with the controlling interpretation already settled by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The requirement to direct deposit of at least 20% under Section 148 is mandatory in substance, and the Appellate Court was justified in imposing the condition. The challenge to the deposit direction failed.

---