Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13103 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1963 of 2025 Applicant :- Noori Quraishi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lok Bhawan Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahmood Alam,Akil Imam,Mayank Dwivedi,Syed Saad Anwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the learned Appellate Court/Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 25.02.2025, directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the fine imposed by the trial court within 15 days which is arbitrary. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is financially unable to deposit 40% of the fine. He submits that the court did not apply its mind and mechanically passed the impugned order. In support of his argument, he relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 446. Perused the record. Perusal of the record it is evident that the Appellate Court did not provide any reasoning for directing the petitioner to deposit 40% of the fine or compensation within 15 days. The requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) is to deposit minimum 20% of the fine or compensation, however, no reasons at all has been assigned by the learned Sessions Court as to why 40% amount is required to be deposited. Section 148 of NI Act provides that the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such amount which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. Section 148(2) of NI Act further provides that such amount of fine shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) has held as under:- 6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 NI Act. Hence, normally, the appellate court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 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. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the courts to consider the said plea. 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. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception." In this case, without assigning any reason or as to why 40% of the fine or compensation is required, straightaway 40% of the fine or compensation has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner that too within a period of 15 days which is contrary to the statutory mandate which provides 60 days from the date of the order passed by the trial court. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 15.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained and is set aside to the extent that it directs the petitioner to deposit 40% of the fine imposed by the trial court vide order dated 28.01.2025. The matter is remanded to the learned court below for reconsideration of the direction to deposit the fine or compensation, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra). The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for suspension of sentence and exemption from depositing the fine or compensation. If such an application is filed within 15 days from today, the court shall decide it within a further period of 15 days. The protection granted by the Appellate Court shall remain operative till its decision on petitioner's application or 30 days whichever is earlier. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench