- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11893 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. UMA MAHESH M S S/O SRI. M. SHIVASHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1986, 8TH MAIN ROAD, E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, AMBABAHAVANI TEMPLE STREET, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANJUNATH J S/O JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.254, GOWTHAM NAGAR, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 022. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.894/2025 PASSED ON DATED 12.06.2025 AND THEREBY EXEMPT THE PETITIONER Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 FROM DEPOSITING RS.5,30,400/- OF THE FINE AMOUNT I.E., (20% OF THE FINE AMOUNT OF RS.26,52,000/-) IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE AS PER ANNEXURE-D. 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 seeking challenging the condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount to entrain an appeal filed by the petitioner questioning the order of confirmation passed by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, adverting to the grounds urged in the petition, would submit that the petitioner has absolutely no transaction whatsoever with respondent–complainant. It is his specific case that the petitioner does not even know the respondent personally and is a total stranger to him. In such circumstances, the very foundation of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 prosecution is vitiated and consequently, the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law. To buttress his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. in Criminal Appeal No.2741/2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No(s).4927/2023), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 148 of the NI Act, the Appellate Court is duty-bound to apply its mind to the facts of each case and examine whether the matter falls within the category of exceptional cases warranting waiver or reduction of the statutory deposit. Learned counsel would further contend that in the present case, the Appellate Court has mechanically directed deposit of 20% of the cheque amount as a condition for grant of stay without considering whether such a condition was justified in light - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is his emphatic contention that the petitioner has a strong and arguable case on merits, and therefore, compelling him to deposit 20% of the fine/cheque amount amounts to violation of his statutory right of appeal and frustrates the very ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra. 3. This Court, having meticulously examined the conditional order passed by the learned Appellate Court, finds that the Appellate Court has categorically recorded a finding to the effect that the present case does not fall within the ambit of “exceptional cases” so as to justify waiver or reduction of the statutory deposit below 20%. Save and except the bald assertions made in the petition, the petitioner has failed to produce any supporting material or documentary evidence to establish his claim that the condition imposed is onerous or unjust. The petitioner has also not demonstrated any glaring illegality or patent error in the judgment of conviction and sentence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 rendered by the learned Magistrate, which would prima-facie indicate that his case falls within the class of exceptional circumstances. 4. On a closer scrutiny of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, it is evident that the petitioner had not seriously contested the trial proceedings. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the petitioner to dislodge the presumption arising under Section 139 of the NI Act, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot, at this stage, be said to be prima-facie illegal or perverse. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court was justified in invoking Section 148 of the NI Act and in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as a precondition for considering his appeal. 5. Even before this Court, except for making sweeping statements that the case is exceptional and that he has high chances of success in appeal, the petitioner has not placed any credible material to substantiate the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 said assertion. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision referred to supra, has indeed clarified that while the normal rule is to insist on deposit of 20% of the cheque amount, in deserving cases where the Appellate Court finds that imposing such a condition would virtually amount to depriving the appellant of his right to prosecute the appeal, discretion can be exercised to waive or reduce the said deposit. However, in the present case, the Appellate Court, after due application of mind, has come to the conclusion that the matter does not fall within the category of exceptional cases. 6. Be that as it may, this Court, having independently examined the materials on record and the order impugned, finds itself in agreement with the finding recorded by the Appellate Court. The present case, by no stretch of reasoning, can be said to be an exceptional case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The conditional order directing deposit of 20% of the cheque amount is well within the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 parameters of Section 148 of the NI Act and does not call for interference. However, in the event the petitioner mobilizes funds and deposits the said amount before the Appellate Court, it is needless to observe that the Appellate Court shall proceed to pass further orders in accordance with law. 7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the criminal petition fails and this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. (ii) However, since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall make arrangements to deposit the amount within one week, if such deposit is made within the stipulated time along with an appropriate application, the Appellate Court shall consider such application in accordance with law and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33852 CRL.P No. 11893 of 2025 review the conditional order in that light by granting extension of time to deposit 20%. In the result, I.A. No.1/2025 also stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22