Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062302026 2026:GAU-AS:4415 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./159/2026 SRI MADHAB KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE PARASU RAM DAS RESIDENT OF NARIKALBARI, P.S. GEETANAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781024, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, MOBILE NO. 8822833503 VERSUS THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI,DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781005. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MS. S D SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNB, PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 27.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this application filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner Sri Madhab Kumar Das has challenged the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2025 by the Page No.# 2/3 learned District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. On 11.11.2025, learned District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro) directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in view of the provisions of law as laid down in Section 148(1) of the NI Act, 1881. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in “Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastav Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 229.” In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section 143A of the NI Act, 1881 is discretionary and directory. The provision of law uses the word ‘may’. 6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Before directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, the Appellate Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. It appears that in the present case, no such discretion was exercised. 8. Considering entire aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount is required to be interfered. Hence, the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is set aside and quashed. 9. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is directed to Page No.# 3/3 re-consider the matter in respect of the Criminal Appeal No. 109/2025 by applying judicial mind in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant