Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12368 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41781 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking following relief:- "a) allow this application quashing the condition imposed in order dated 17.09.24 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2024 Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Jamner, District Agra b) direct the Sessions Judge, Agra not to enforce the condition imposed in order dated 17.09.24, during the pendency of his appeal. c) direct the Sessions Judge, Agra to allow the applicant to remain on bail without depositing 20% of the fine, till the disposal of his appeal." 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that opposite party No.2 filed the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant on the ground that the cheque was issued by the applicant in discharge of liability but on presentation before the bank, the same was dishonoured and despite issuance of the demand notice, the cheque amount was not paid. The trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the present applicant by order dated 12.9.2024 and against that order the present applicant filed Appeal No. 228 of 2024 in which though applicant was released on bail, but a condition was imposed under Section 148 N.I. Act that the applicant would deposit 20% of the find by order dated 17.9.2024 which is under challenge in the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while passing the order dated 17.9.2024 under Section 148 N.I. Act, the court below has not considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others; (2023) 10 SCC 446 wherein it is observed that when the appellant seeks blanket stay of the conviction order, then the appellate court should record the finding that the case of the appellant does not fall within the exceptional category to persuade the appellate court to direct the appellant to deposit compensation less than 20% of the fine. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order is in the teeth of the direction issued by the Apex Court. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the appeal filed by the applicant against the conviction order dated 12.9.2024, under Section 138 N.I. Act, the appellate court, while directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the fine, has not recorded any finding that the case of the applicant does not fall with the exceptional category which could persuade the court to deposit the amount less than 20% of fine. 7. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) has clearly observed that where the appellant prays for blanket stay of the conviction, then the appellate court should record specific finding that the case of the appellant does not fall within the exceptional category before directing to deposit 20% of the fine. Paragraph No.7 & 9 of the Jamboo Bhandari (supra) is quoted as under:- "7. Therefore, when the appellate court considers the prayer under Section 389CrPC of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 NI Act, it is always open for the appellate court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not." 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 17.9.2024 is ex facie erroneous, being contrary to the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra). Therefore, order dated 17.9.2024, passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2024 is hereby set aside, subject to the condition that the applicant will deposit 10% of the fine within a period of 15 days from today before the court below which shall be released in favour of opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the court below will decide the application of opposite party No.2, filed under Section 148 N.I. Act, within next 15 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of. 10. Considering the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2016 and the final order could be passed therein on 12.9.2024, the court below will decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad