Mandatory deposit in cheque dishonour appeals is ordinarily required; waiver needs special reasons, and non-compliance can end sentence suspension.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 generally requires a convicted drawer in a cheque dishonour appeal to deposit at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, and waiver is available only for special reasons. Pendency of the appeal on merits, including reliance on an acquittal in a connected matter, was held insufficient by itself to justify exemption from the statutory deposit. Where suspension of sentence was granted subject to that condition, non-compliance with the deposit requirement provided a valid basis for the appellate court to vacate the suspension.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to waiver of the mandatory deposit of 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 during the pendency of the appeal against conviction; (ii) Whether the appellate court was justified in vacating the suspension of sentence for non-compliance with the deposit condition.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to waiver of the mandatory deposit of 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 during the pendency of the appeal against conviction.

Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is intended to advance the object of speedy and effective redress in cheque dishonour cases by requiring, as a rule, deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. Waiver of that requirement can be granted only for special reasons. The pendency of an appeal on merits, even when the appellants rely on an acquittal in a connected matter, does not by itself constitute a special reason to exempt a convicted drawer from the statutory deposit.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to waiver of the deposit condition.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court was justified in vacating the suspension of sentence for non-compliance with the deposit condition.

Analysis: Once suspension of sentence is granted subject to a statutory or judicial condition, failure to comply with that condition can lawfully result in vacation of the suspension. The appellate court retains jurisdiction to take a call on non-compliance and to pass appropriate orders. Non-payment of the amount directed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 therefore furnished a valid basis to withdraw the benefit of suspension of sentence.

Conclusion: The appellate court was justified in vacating the suspension of sentence.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on merits, the statutory deposit requirement was upheld, and the order vacating suspension of sentence was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation is ordinarily mandatory, waiver is permissible only for special reasons, and non-compliance with a condition of suspension of sentence can validly result in vacation of that suspension.

---