HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10526 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. By means of present application, the applicant has sought quashing of impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by Session Judge, Lucknow (Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2025. Further prayer has been made to direct the appellate Court to reduce fine after considering peculiar circumstances of the applicant-appellant. It has been submitted that while admitting the appeal against conviction and sentence passed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the Appellate Court has passed the order to deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation, which is exorbitant. It has been further submitted that financial condition of the appellant- applicant is not good, therefore, his case may be considered sympathetically. Reliance has been placed on order of this Court passed in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3676 of 2024 (Shilip Maurya @ Shileep Maurya Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another) on 23.04.2024. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Ravi Prakash, Vinod Kumar Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar Vaish .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) After going through record and legal provision of Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, it is abundantly clear that the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. In the present case, admittedly, minimum 20% of the total amount of compensation has been directed to be deposited while admitting the appeal, therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. Judgment passed in the case of Shilip Maurya @ Shileep Maurya (Supra) will not be applicable in the present case for the reason that the Appellate Court while admitting the appeal directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the total amount of compensation. The applicant is devoid of merits, and is, accordingly, rejected. December 16, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 10526 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench