Supreme Court clarifies deposit requirements for relief under Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts erred in mandating a 20% deposit for relief under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. based on Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Emphasizing a purposive interpretation, the Court stated that exceptions can be made if unjust. The appellants' deposit was to be verified, and the High Court's orders were set aside. Parties were directed to appear for further proceedings, with the interim suspension of sentence continuing. The appeals were allowed, and pending applications disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the condition of deposit for granting relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment Summary:

Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and were directed to pay a certain amount. The Sessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount. The High Court confirmed this order based on the interpretation of Section 148 as discussed in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi1. The Supreme Court emphasized a purposive interpretation of Section 148, stating that while the usual practice is to impose the deposit condition, exceptions can be made if it would be unjust or deprive the appellant of the right to appeal. The Appellate Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence without the deposit condition in exceptional cases, with reasons recorded.

Court's Ruling and Directions:
The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court erred in treating the 20% deposit as an absolute rule without considering exceptions. The appellants had already deposited the required amount, but the High Court needed to verify this. The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the revision petitions were restored. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings. The interim order for suspension of sentence would continue until the revised petitions were disposed of. The appeals were allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---