Purposive reading of cheque dishonour deposit rule limits appellate court to a minimum 20% deposit pending appeal.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was construed purposively to regulate deposits at the suspension-of-sentence stage in cheque dishonour appeals. The appellate court may direct deposit of not less than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, and a direction for 50% deposit was inconsistent with that statutory framework. The deposit condition was therefore reduced to 20% within sixty days. The court also held that interim bail could continue during the appeal, but it would stand cancelled if the modified deposit condition was not complied with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court could require deposit of 50% of the fine imposed on conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the stage of suspension of sentence pending appeal. (ii) Whether the condition of automatic cancellation of bail on non-deposit was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court could require deposit of 50% of the fine imposed on conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the stage of suspension of sentence pending appeal.

Analysis: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was read purposively in light of its object of expediting cheque dishonour litigation and preventing delay by convicted drawers. The provision empowers the appellate court to direct deposit of a sum not less than twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The court relied on the settled interpretation that the statutory minimum is ordinarily to be imposed, subject to reasons for departure, and held that the appellate court's direction to deposit 50% was inconsistent with that framework.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit 50% of the fine was modified, and the applicant was required to deposit 20% of the fine within sixty days.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition of automatic cancellation of bail on non-deposit was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellate court had granted bail while directing deposit of the amount, but the impugned order made the bail order liable to stand cancelled automatically on default. In the context of the statutory scheme under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the pending appeal, the court treated the protection of the complainant's interest and the appellant's continued liberty as to be regulated by compliance with the modified deposit condition.

Conclusion: The bail was permitted to continue during the pendency of the appeal, but it would stand cancelled if the modified deposit condition was not complied with.

Final Conclusion: The application was disposed of with modification of the appellate court's order, reducing the required deposit to 20% and maintaining bail subject to compliance with that condition.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to be construed purposively so that the appellate court may require a deposit of not less than 20% of the fine or compensation pending appeal, and conditions of interim relief must conform to that statutory scheme.

---