1 2025:CGHC:3851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 239 of 2025 1 - Amit Banrjee S/o Shri Varun Banrjee Aged About 47 Years Proprietor New Sagar Biryani, Near Barakha Hotel, Azad Chowk Market, Station Road, P.S. Ganj District Raipur Chhattisgarh And Behind Pt. Ramsakha College, Sector - 3, Gudhiyari, P.S Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Tushar Majumdar Son Of Shri Devashish Majumdar, Resident Of Near Mamta Poha Mill, Kumharpara, Fafadih, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistate Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Pushplata Khalko, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned 8th Additional Session Judge Raipur, district Raipur Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal no. 381/2024, wherein the application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court with the condition that 20% of the 2 amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- is to be deposited without giving any time limit in which the said amount has to be deposited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a very poor person and has no source of income. It is impossible for him to pay 20% of the said amount. However, he prays for 60 days time in order to pay the said amount. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State raised no objection in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the available order with utmost circumspection. 5. In Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that deposition of 20% compensation while preferring appeal under Section 148 is not an absolute rule and the Appellate court can consider whether the case is an exception and record the reason for its exception in conclusion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in same case has considered the judgment of Surinder Singh Deswal alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virendra Gandhi wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the word used is ‘may’, it is generally to be construed as a ‘rule’ or ‘shall’ and not to direct to deposit by the Appellate Court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned and 3 the Appellate court directed for depositing 20% of compensation/fine amount as imposed by learned Trial Court. Thus, purposive interpretation of section 148 of N.I. Act is that normally the Appellate court will be just in imposing the condition of depositing as provided under Section 148 of N.I. Act. 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. 6. Considering the above stated legal position, I am of the view that if the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of compensation amount within one month from the date of order of this court, the object of provision of Section 148 of N.I. Act, 1881 will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned 8th Additional Session Judge Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, so far as it relates to condition imposing 20% is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed in part. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza