Discretionary waiver of deposit under cheque dishonour law upheld where appellate court gave cogent reasons and no perversity was shown.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 confers a discretionary power to relax the deposit condition in exceptional cases where insisting on deposit would be unjust or effectively impair the right of appeal. The appellate court may also consider additional grounds permitted to be raised and may take a prima facie view of the appeal while deciding exemption. Where the order granting waiver records cogent reasons and shows no jurisdictional error or perversity, interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not warranted. The exemption order was therefore upheld, and the pending appeal was to proceed independently on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order exempting the accused from depositing 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including whether the appellate court could consider additional grounds and prima facie merits while deciding the exemption application.

Analysis: The power under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is discretionary and may be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where insistence on deposit would be unjust or would practically deny the right of appeal. The appellate court had been specifically permitted to reconsider the matter and to allow additional grounds to be raised. The fresh application was only to place those grounds before the appellate court, and its consideration did not prejudice the hearing of the appeal on merits. The appellate court was also entitled to take a holistic view, including a prima facie assessment of the appeal, while deciding whether the deposit condition should be waived. The impugned order recorded cogent reasons for granting exemption, and no jurisdictional error or perversity was shown to warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The challenge to the exemption order failed and the discretionary waiver of the 20% deposit was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable for disturbing the appellate court's discretionary order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the pending appeal was left to be decided independently on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an appellate court's order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is unwarranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the appellate court has exercised discretion on cogent reasons in exceptional circumstances and without affecting the merits of the pending appeal.

---