Deposit under Section 148 is not mandatory in every case; appellate courts may waive it for recorded reasons.

In an appeal from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court held that the amended Section 148 requires a purposive reading: the appellate court may ordinarily direct deposit of not less than 20% of the fine or compensation, but that requirement is not absolute. Where insisting on the deposit would be unjust or would effectively deprive the appellant of the right of appeal, the court may dispense with it for recorded reasons. The lower courts erred in treating the deposit condition as mandatory in every case, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal arising from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the appellate court is bound to insist on deposit of a minimum 20% of the fine or compensation amount while considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or whether an exception can be made in a suitable case.

Analysis: The amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held to require a purposive construction. The normal rule is that the appellate court may direct deposit of not less than 20% of the fine or compensation, but that requirement is not absolute. Where the court is satisfied that insisting on such deposit would be unjust or would effectively deprive the appellant of the right of appeal, an exception may be made for recorded reasons. The courts below proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the deposit condition was mandatory in every case without exception.

Conclusion: The condition of deposit of 20% is not invariable, and the appellate court may dispense with it in an exceptional case for recorded reasons. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the High Court.

---