- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28977 CRL.P No. 10646 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10646 OF 2025 BETWEEN: GEDDAM JACOB NIXON S/O J D ASEERWADAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.156, INDU FORTUNE FIELDS, NEAR HITECH RAILWAY STATION, 13TH PHASE, KPHB COLONY, HYDERABAD - 560 072. TELANGANA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DESAI RAJENDRA CHANDRASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. POLISETTI ESHA AGED- MAJOR, C/O. MAJUNATH NAYAK, R/AT NO. 17F, 4TH FLOOR, TERRACE, 18TH CROSS, SECTOR 3, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BY THE Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28977 CRL.P No. 10646 of 2025 ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN CRL.A.NO.737/2025 THAT IMPOSES THE CONDITION FOR THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT 15 PERCENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT IN ANNEXURE D, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the Accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court, which has granted a conditional stay of operation of the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to the deposit of 15% of the fine amount of Rs.25,20,000/-. 2. The petitioner has assailed the said condition in part, placing reliance on the judgment of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28977 CRL.P No. 10646 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Muskan Enterprises and Another vs. The State of Punjab and Another. Relying on this decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the requirement of a pre-deposit of 15% to entertain an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act ought to be waived, in view of the nature of the defence raised by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner asserts that during trial, rebuttal evidence was led to demonstrate that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is contended that the cheque was issued in the context of a hand loan transaction involving the petitioner’s niece, and that the petitioner had sold six sites, thereby discharging any liability. On this basis, it is submitted that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28977 CRL.P No. 10646 of 2025 proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were not maintainable. 4. On a close examination of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises, it is evident that the appellate court may, in appropriate cases, dispense with the condition of pre-deposit if it forms a prima facie opinion that the conviction and sentence are ex facie erroneous and unsustainable. However, such dispensation is not automatic and is contingent upon a manifestly arguable case being made out at the threshold. 5. In the present case, having regard to the defence projected by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised, while arguable, do not fall within the limited exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. The defence raised by the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28977 CRL.P No. 10646 of 2025 requires detailed examination on merits, which cannot be undertaken at this interlocutory stage. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the conditional order passed by the Appellate Court, requiring the petitioner to deposit 15% of the fine amount of Rs.25,20,000/- for stay of the conviction. The order is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39