Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132648 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21664 of 2025 Applicant :- Laxmi Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Shesh Narain Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsels for the parties that they do not propose to file any supplementary affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record. 3. With the consent of the parties the application has been decided at the fresh stage. 4. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2025 (Laxmi Singh vs. State of U.P. and another), U/s 138 of N.I. Act. 5. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act, the applicant came to be convicted on 04.04.2025 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. court no.20, Azamgarh in complaint CNR No.3805710 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar singh vs. Laxmi Singh) being complaint case no. 5710/ 5711 of 2024 whereby the applicant was punished for imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 57,20,000/-. Assailing the conviction order, the applicant preferred criminal appeal no. 56 of 2025 which came up for consideration before the court of Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 02.05.2025 whereby the conviction and recovery order was stayed subject to deposit of 20 per cent of the amount of Rs. 57,20,000/- to the tune of Rs. 11,44000/-. 6. Questioning the order dated 02.05.2025 in so far as it directs to the applicant to deposit 20 per cent of Rs. 11,44000/- out of total amount so determined by the trial court to the tune of Rs. 57,20,000/- the present application has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the consideration which weighed with the court below while issuing a blanket direction for deposit of 20 per cent of the fine determined by the trial court is not sustainable as the same is not as per the mandate of the of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation LTD and ors, 2023 Live Law (SC) 776 and in the case of Muskan Enterprises and Another vs. State of Punjab and another, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5491 of 2024 decided on 19, December, 2024. He submits that the case of the applicant whether it falls within the exceptional category or not has not been considered in correct perspective. He submits that without assigning any reasons, it has been recited that the case of the applicant does not fall within the exceptional category. 8. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that the order has been passed in confirmity and in consonance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (Supra) and Muskan Enterprises (Supra). However, he as per instructions received from his client that he does not want to go further into the said issue. However the applicant may deposit 10 per cent of the total amount. To such a submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has no objection as per instruction from his client, he is agreeable to depost the said amount. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that a direction be issued for expeditiously disposal of the appeal. Learned AGA has no objection to the same. 9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 10. Apparently, post conviction an appeal came to be preferred whereby a direction to be issued to deposit 20 per cent of the fine as determined by the trial court. Section 148 of the Act itself obligates that an appeal against conviction, the court is to direct for payment of 20 per cent of the compensation determined by the trial court in the light of the guidelines enunciated in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (Supra) and Muskan Enterprises (Supra). 11. Since the learned counsel for the parties as per their instructions, have jointly stated that depositing 10 per cent would suffice thus this Court is not delving into the said aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the present application is disposed with the following terms: a. The order dated 02.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2025 in so far as it direct to deposit 20 per cent of fine as determined by the court below, Rs. 11,44000/- out of Rs. 57,20,000/- is modified to 10 per cent. b. The applicant shall deposit 10 per cent of the fine of Rs. 57,20,000/- by 28.08.2025. c. Since a statement has been made by the counsel for the parties as per instructions from their client that they shall not take any unnecessary adjournment in the disposal of the appeal. Thus, it is required and expected that the court below shall decide the appeal with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournments and in case any adjournment are granted, the same should not be in a routine manner but only on extreme circumstances beyond the control and comprehension that too not of stretch more than an week. 11. In case the amount of 10 per cent as directed above is not deposited by 28.08.2025 and a proof is not submitted before the court below, then legal consequences shall follow. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 C. MANI Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad