- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 372 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SATYA NARAYAN TULYSAN, S/O LATE GANESH LAL TULYSAN, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SCOPE VINCOM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SY. NO. 442, JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 106 AND ALSO AT: NO.5A, ROBINSON STREET, KOLKATA – 700 017, WEST BENGAL. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. SHRI. UPEN TULSYAN, S/O SATYA NARAYAN TULYSAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SCOPE VINCOM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SY. NO. 442, JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 106 AND ALSO AT: NO.5A, ROBINSON STREET, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 KOLKATA – 700 017, WEST BENGAL. 3. SHRI. BIJAY CHAUDHARY, S/O LATE B.K.CHOUDHURY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SCOPE VINCOM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SY. NO. 442, JIGANI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN V., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI SITARAM SULTANIA, NO.9/1-1/, (OLD NO.9/2), POTTERS COLONY, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR, BENGALURU – 560 002. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 PASSED BEFORE THE LEARNED XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25389/2025 (ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 12.11.2025 by which the sentence of the petitioners is suspended on a condition that they would deposit 20% of the fine amount and executed a bail bond thereon. 2. Heard Sri.Manmohan P.N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners are the accused, the respondent is the complainant. The petitioners and the complainant have a transaction. The transaction goes wrong and the complainant approaches the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners- accused gets convicted of the said offence. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter i.e., the conviction of the petitioners. While filing an appeal against the order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 conviction, the petitioners file application seeking suspension of sentence. The said suspension is ordered by the following order: "The execution of order of sentence and conviction dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned XIV ACJM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in CC No. 52970/2017, is hereby suspended for a period of 3 months from today, subject to following conditions: 1. The appellant shall deposit 20% of the total fine amount before the trial court within 60 days from the date of this order. 2. The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trail court within 60 days from the date of this order. Issue notice to the respondent on appeal memo. For reporting the compliance of the above order. Call on 23-12-25 Sd/- XIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, B'lore, CCH No.22" The petitioners aggrieved by the said condition of 20% of deposit of the fine amount, are at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.P.N.Manhoman appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the law as laid - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 down by the Apex Court, is completely given a go-by in directing the payment of 20% of the fine amount, while granting suspension of sentence. Learned counsel submits that the order must have been reasoned as to why 20% of the fine amount is a must in the case at hand. Learned counsel submits that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the concerned Court. 5. In the light of the issue being one of the suspension of sentence on certain conditions, no notice need be issued to the applicant. The admitted facts are that the petitioners get convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order of conviction is sought to be stayed by the order quoted herein above. The Apex Court considering an identical circumstance in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS1, has held as follows: 5. Para 8 of the decision of this Court in Surinder Singh Deswal [Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1144 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 461 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 765] reads thus : (SCC p. 350) “8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that even considering the language used in Section 148 NI Act as amended, the appellate court “may” order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and the word used is not “shall” and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court to direct the appellant-accused to deposit such sum, and the appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section 148 NI Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended Section 148 NI Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Section 148 NI Act, though it is true that in the amended Section 148 NI Act, the word used is “may”, it is generally to be construed as a “rule” or “shall” and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned. Therefore amended Section 148 NI Act confers power upon the appellate court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the appellant-accused under Section 389CrPC to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended Section 148 NI Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 NI Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 NI Act, but also Section 138 NI Act. The Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonour of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions, Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 NI Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 NI Act and also Section 138 NI Act.” 6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 NI Act. Hence, normally, the appellate court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. 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. 8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the courts to consider the said plea. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 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." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the concerned Court must apply its mind as to why 20% of the amount is necessary to be paid in the given case while suspending the sentence. If the law as laid down by the Apex Court is pitted against the order passed by the concerned Court, it would run foul of the same. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed for a remand to the hands of the concerned Court to follow the law and pass necessary orders, again in accordance with law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. [II] Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.A.No.25389/2025 passed before Learned XIII Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2341 CRL.P No. 372 of 2026 [III] The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to answer the application of suspension of sentence bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, particularly, the law as laid down by the Apex Court in JAMBOO BHANDARI vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS supra. [IV] In the light of the order of suspension being granted to the petitioners, the same shall continue till further orders are passed at the hands of the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS