Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010151862026 2026:GAU-AS:12684 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./378/2026 IBRAHIM ALI KHANDAKAR SON OF ABUL KAHEM ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURIHA, P.O. KAYAKUCHI, P.S. BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:AZHAR UDDIN SON OF LATE ABDUL KUDDUS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHOWKAMARI P.O. KAYAKUCHI P.S. BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 442 of BNSS 2023 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2024, passed in N.I. Case No. 116/2022, by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta, by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 6 (Six) months with a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to the complainant with a default clause. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17.06.2026, passed in a Criminal Appeal No. 22/2024, by the learned court of Additional Session Judge, (FTC) Barpeta, Assam, by which the prayer of the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the balance interim compensation amount has been rejected. By the said order dated 17.06.2026, the stay order dated 07.09.2024, staying the judgment passed by the Trial Court had been vacated until further orders and by the said order, the hearing of the appeal is also kept in abeyance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Trial Court, i.e., The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barpeta Assam, by Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2024, had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and passed a sentence that the petitioner should undergo SI for a Page No.# 3/6 period of 6 (Six) months, along with the compensation amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to be paid to the complainant and in default for payment of the same, the petitioner was further sentenced to undergo SI for another period of 1(One) month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Session Judge, Barpeta and Criminal Appeal Case No. 22/2024 was registered. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel that during the filing of the appeal, 10% of the compensation amount was paid by the petitioner and the Appellate Court, by order dated 07.09.2024, admitted the appeal and in the interim, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment and the fine awarded by Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2024 was stayed till disposal of the appeal and the convict, i.e., the petitioner was allowed to remain on previous bail. However, the same was made subject to the condition that the convict shall deposit in the court an amount of 20% of the fine awarded by the learned Trial Court within a period of 60 days. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that by a subsequent order dated 28.07.2025, the Appellate Court, after considering that substantial amount of interim compensation was paid by the petitioner, the appellant was allowed to go on fresh bail and further directed the appellant to deposit the remaining amount by the next date. The said court had also directed the complainant to receive the amount of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) along with giving the undertaking to refund the same, if the judgment goes otherwise. The learned counsel further stated that, the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner had submitted an application before the Appellate Court to grant him some more time to deposit the remaining amount of the interim compensation, however, the same was rejected by the Appellate Court by order dated 17.06.2026 and by the said order, the Appellate Court had also vacated the order dated 07.09.2024, by which the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2024 was stayed. By the said order, dated 17.06.2026, the Appellate Court had given the liberty to the Trial Court to proceed with the execution of the sentence till receipt of further stay order and further, the Appellate Court had kept in abeyance the appeal hearing. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to financial constraints the petitioner had taken time to deposit the remaining amount of the interim compensation, i.e., 10% of the amount awarded but without considering the ground taken by the petitioner, the said prayer was rejected. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his argument has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in “Jamboo Bhandari Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others” reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446, by which the Supreme Court had held that 20% of the compensation amount to be deposited when the appeal is filed is not an absolute rule without accommodating any exception. 10. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, this court gives the following findings: (i) The Appellate Court, by order dated 07.09.2024, had ordered that the Page No.# 5/6 operation of the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court to remain suspended till the disposal of the appeal. (ii) It was also ordered that the petitioner to remain on previous bail subject to the condition that he deposits in the court an amount of 20% of the fine awarded by the learned Trial Court. It is an admitted position, that the petitioner has deposited 10% of the compensation awarded by the Trial Court and due to financial constraints, he had prayed by making an application that more time should be given to pay the remaining amount. (iii) The Appellate Court had suspended the sentence as well as the fine awarded till disposal of the appeal as stated above but by subsequent order dated 17.06.2026, the Appellate Court had not only rejected the prayer for extension of time to deposit the remaining amount but had also vacated the stay order dated 07.09.2024 with the further stipulation that the Trial Court would proceed with the execution of the sentence until any further stay order. However, the same is not in consonance with the law laid down. (iv) In Jamboo Bhandari, (supra), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it is open for the Appellate Court to consider in exceptional cases that, 20% of the fine/compensation amount should be deposited while granting the order for suspension of sentence. It is further held therein that, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reason for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. It is seen in the instant case that the reason for imposing the deposition of 20 % of the compensation amount has not been revealed in the said order. It has been further held by the Page No.# 6/6 Hon’ble Apex Court that imposing 20% of the compensation amount is not mandatory and the word used under Section 148 of the N.I. Act is “may” and the same leaves the Appellate Court with the discretion to impose or not to impose. 11. The Appellate Court is as such directed to hear the appeal and dispose the same within a reasonable period of time. The order dated 17.06.2026, is quashed and set aside and the order dated 07.09.2024, by which the operation of the order of the Trial Court as well as the fine was stayed, will become operative. 12. The Criminal Revision Petition, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant