Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15031 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32199 of 2024 Applicant :- Uday Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Kumar Verma,G.A.,Shyam Babu Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Janardhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for the following relief: "(i) Quashed the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna partially to the extent it imposes condition to deposit 40% of the penal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- imposed by the trial court vide order dated 13.08.2024 within a period of 30 days." 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that opposite party No.2 filed the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant on the ground that the cheque was issued by the applicant in discharge of liability but on presentation before the bank, the same was dishonoured and despite issuance of the demand notice, the cheque amount was not paid. The trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the present applicant by order dated 13.08.2024 and against that order the present applicant filed Appeal No.39 of 2024 in which though applicant was released on bail, but a condition was imposed under Section 138 N.I. Act that the applicant would deposit 40% of the find by order dated 22.08.2024 which is under challenge in the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while passing the order dated 22.08.2024 under Section 138 N.I. Act, the court below has not considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others; (2023) 10 SCC 446 wherein it is observed that when the appellant seeks blanket stay of the conviction order, then the appellate court should record the finding that the case of the appellant does not fall within the exceptional category to persuade the appellate court to direct the appellant to deposit compensation less than 20% of the fine. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order is in the teeth of the direction issued by the Apex Court. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the appeal filed by the applicant against the conviction order dated 13.08.2024, under Section 138 N.I. Act, the appellate court, while directing the applicant to deposit 40% of the fine, has not recorded any finding that the case of the applicant does not fall with the exceptional category which could persuade the court to deposit the amount less than 20% of fine. 7. The Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) has clearly observed that where the appellant prays for blanket stay of the conviction, then the appellate court should record specific finding that the case of the appellant does not fall within the exceptional category before directing to deposit 20% of the fine. Paragraph Nos.7 & 9 of the Jamboo Bhandari (supra) is quoted as under:- "7. Therefore, when the appellate court considers the prayer under Section 389CrPC of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 NI Act, it is always open for the appellate court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not." 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 is ex facie erroneous, being contrary to the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra). Therefore, order dated 22.08.2024, passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024 to the extent of direction to deposit 40% of fine, is hereby set aside, subject to the condition that the applicant will deposit 10% of the fine within a period of 15 days from today before the court below which shall be released in favour of opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the court below will decide the application of opposite party No.2, filed under Section 148 N.I. Act, within next 15 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad