- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8241 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ARTHUR THRILOK SINGH S/O. ANAND RAJ AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC.-RETD. DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICER R/AT- DOOR NO. 3992/25 9TH CROSS, NEAR MES CONVENT ANJANEYA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE-577004. 2. SMT. RATHNAMALA W/O ARTHUR THRILOK SINGH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC.- RETD. NURSE R/AT- DOOR NO. 3992/25 9TH CROSS, NEAR MES CONVENT ANJANEYA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE- 577004. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. POOJA S.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH KUMAR RAO .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.M. SURESH S/O LATE MURUGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. BUSINESSMAN AND HON'BLE SECRETARY OF SRI SOMESHWARA VIDYALAYA R/AT- DOOR NO. 774/37 MANJUSHA SHIVAKUMARSWAMY LAYOUT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 HADADI ROAD DAVANGERE - 577005. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.A NO.22/2025 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DEPOSITING 20% OF FINE AMOUNT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the accused persons assailing the conditional order of stay granted by the Appellate Court while entertaining an appeal preferred by them under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction rendered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), whereby the petitioners have been sentenced to pay a fine of ₹12,05,000/- to the complainant within one month, with a further direction that, in default of payment, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The Appellate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 Court, while staying the execution of the order of conviction and sentence, has imposed a condition directing the petitioners to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in compliance with Section 148 of the NI Act. It is this conditional stay which is under challenge before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in assailing the impugned order, has strenuously contended that the petitioners are entitled to an unconditional stay of the order of conviction and sentence. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Others1 and in Muskan Enterprises & Another v. State of Punjab & Another (Criminal Appeal No.5491/2024). Drawing attention to these pronouncements, learned counsel has sought to persuade this Court that the Appellate Court, while granting stay, has not adverted to the peculiar facts of the case nor 1 (2023) 10 SCC 446 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 recorded any reasons justifying the imposition of the condition requiring deposit of 20% of the cheque amount. It is, therefore, urged that the said condition deserves to be set aside. 3. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court is misplaced. The primary contention advanced is that the petitioners, being retired Government Teachers and pensioners drawing monthly pensions of approximately Rs.21,600/- (petitioner No.1) and Rs.3,743/- (petitioner No.2), are unable to comply with the conditional order of deposit passed by the Appellate Court. At first blush, this plea may appear to carry some force. However, on a closer scrutiny of the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Magistrate, it becomes evident that the petitioners’ defence before the Trial Court was that there was no privity of transaction with the complainant. According to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 them, they had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from one Rashid and had handed over the disputed cheques to him as security for the said loan, which they claim to have repaid. Upon an appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate has rightly disbelieved the said defence and has convicted the petitioners under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. The record further discloses that the petitioners were Government teachers during their service tenure. Having regard to their employment background, it is reasonable to presume that they may have received terminal or retirement benefits. In such circumstances, they cannot legitimately seek exemption from the statutory requirement of deposit mandated under Section 148 of the NI Act on the sole ground of financial incapacity. More importantly, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not advance their case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said decisions, has only carved out a limited exception to the statutory mandate of Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 148, holding that, in rare and exceptional cases such as where rigid insistence on pre-deposit would completely frustrate the right of appeal, the Court may relax the requirement in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Those pronouncements were rendered in the backdrop of peculiar contractual obligations and on facts entirely distinct from those obtaining in the present matter. The petitioners have not demonstrated any such extraordinary circumstance warranting relaxation of the statutory condition. 5. This Court, having carefully examined the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Magistrate and the conditional stay order passed by the Appellate Court, is of the considered opinion that there is no error or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. At this interlocutory stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, this Court finds no justification to relax or dispense with the requirement - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 of deposit directed by the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the NI Act. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference. 6. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits. (ii) It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioners deposit 20% of the cheque amount as directed by the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. (iii) Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, that the petitioners, who are retired Government servants and presently drawing pension, will mobilize the requisite funds and make earnest efforts to comply with the condition, this Court considers it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35375 CRL.P No. 8241 of 2025 appropriate to grant limited indulgence by way of extension of time. Although the Appellate Court, while granting stay, directed that the deposit of 20% of the amount be made within sixty days, the period is hereby extended by a further four weeks from today. (iv) In the event the petitioners furnish a Demand Draft for the aforesaid amount before the Appellate Court by filing an appropriate application within the extended period, the Appellate Court shall consider such application on its merits and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32