Petitioner must deposit 20% compensation under Section 148 for sentence suspension in dishonored cheque case

The Punjab & Haryana HC dismissed a petition challenging the Lower Appellate Court's order requiring 20% compensation deposit for sentence suspension in a dishonored cheque case. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a Rs.6,00,000 dishonored cheque. The HC held that Section 148 creates a statutory liability making the 20% deposit mandatory, and reasoning is only required when granting exceptions to this requirement. The court found no grounds for exception as the petitioner failed to demonstrate inability to deposit or that the condition would deprive the right to appeal.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount while deciding the application for suspension of sentence and criminal appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Lack of reasoning in the Lower Appellate Court's order
The petitioner challenged the Lower Appellate Court's order, arguing that it lacked reasoning for imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that while the Appellate Court can impose such a condition, exceptions can be made if it would deprive the appellant of the right to appeal. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the parties to appear before the High Court for further proceedings.

Issue 2: Statutory liability under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The Court noted that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is a statutory liability enforceable by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner was required to show exceptional circumstances to be exempt from this deposit, especially after being convicted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory provisions and rejected the petitioner's argument for exemption.

Issue 3: Validity of imposing the 20% deposit condition
Referring to a previous case, the Court discussed the validity of imposing the 20% deposit condition for suspending the sentence. It highlighted the need to expedite proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and upheld the mandatory nature of the Appellate Court's power to direct such deposits. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the accused to deposit the amount ordered by the Lower Appellate Court within the stipulated time, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition for lacking merits and upheld the statutory requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the Lower Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---