HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9845 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 13.11.2025 and 29.7.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2023 "Parveen Rais Vs. Rais Ahmad" with a further prayer to permit the applicant to withdraw 20% compensation amount deposited by opposite party no.2. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was allowed in favour of the applicant on 30.9.2023 against which, opposite party no.2 preferred an appeal before the court below, which is pending. It has been further submitted that 20% amount of the total amount of Rs.45 lacs was deposited before the appellate court and the applicant moved an application for release of the amount of Rs.9 lacs in his favour in view of Section 148(3) of the N.I. Act. Section 148(3) of the N.I. Act reads as under: "148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Faisal Ahmad Khan, Abdul Muqeem Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rais Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under Section 143-A." 4. The aforesaid application has been rejected on the ground that the decision will be taken at the time of final hearing. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the order has been passed without considering the fact that the amount has been deposited and the applicant is ready to furnish the sureties and indemnity bond. He has submitted that the complaint has been allowed after considering all the evidence on record and court has given categorical finding that applicant is entitled for compensation and order for conviction has been passed. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon Paragraphs 4 and 14 of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Venkatachalapathy vs. Sri Yoga Traders and others, 2020(3) RCR (Criminal) 885. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration that Rs.9 lacs has already been deposited before the appellate court, I direct the appellate court to release the said amount immediately in favour of the applicant. The applicant shall execute an indemnity bond with sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the appellate court to the effect that in the event of acquittal of the accused, he shall indemnify the amount of Rs.9 lacs with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 6. The application is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.11.2025 and 29.7.2024 are set aside. November 19, 2025 Sachin A482 No. 9845 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench