- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 973 OF 2026 BETWEEN: H. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O S. HARISH CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 17, 9TH E MAIN ROAD, BAIRAWESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. RAMESH PAI (DR.RAMESH PAI SHRINGERI) S/O VARADARAJ PAI SHRINGERI, NOW AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 R/AT DEVASHISH, LAKSHMINDRA NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR, 2ND PHASE, 15TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 085. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.ANANTHESHWARA SHENOY S/O SRI. VASANTH SHENOY NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.202, VITTAL TOWERSM, NEAR OLD TALUK OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-73) BENGALURU DIRECTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO DEPOSIT 10 PERCENT OF THE CHEQUE AMOUNT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling question an order of the concerned Court dated 23.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.25368/2025. 2. Heard Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner is the accused gets convicted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and prefers an appeal in Crl.A.No.25368/2025. 4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The concerned Court suspends the sentence subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit 10% of the amount. The order of the concerned court reads as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 "ORDER Acting U/Sec.389(10 of Cr.P.C., the execution and operation of the Judgment passed by the XVII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.59530/2018 dtd. 22.9.2025 is hereby stayed for a period of 3 months, subject to Appellant depositing 10% of the cheque amount before the Trial Court, within 8 weeks from today. In case of default on the part of the Appellant to deposit the 10% of the cheque amount, this order stands cancelled. The Appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, within 4 weeks. Regarding prayer made in IA.No.2/2025 is concerned, before passing any order of IA.No.2/2025, hearing on behalf of the Respondent is necessary. Issue notice of appeal memo and Notice on IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and the Notice on Interim Order passed on IA.No.1/2025 to the Respondent through court and Speed Post, if PF is paid and correct address furnished by the Appellant, returnable by : 27.11.2025." 5. The concerned Court, though records that considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI v. M.P. SIDC Ltd.,1 the order of 10% is made, while there is no reason indicated in the order as is necessary in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI (supra). The Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI (supra), has held as follows: 1 (2023) 10 SCC 446 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 "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. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court. 12. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders [Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5852] , [Satish Ji Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine MP 5853] of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 9-10-2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored revision petitions, the interim order [Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1204] passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate." 6. In the light of the afore-extracted judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI (supra), the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the concerned Court. The concerned Court shall now reconsider the imposition of 10% on the suspension of sentence and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.25368/2025 by the LXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, [CCH-73], Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to reconsider imposition of 10% or otherwise as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence. (iv) In the light of the suspension of sentence operating in favour of the petitioner, the same shall operate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5082 CRL.P No. 973 of 2026 till the concerned Court would pass necessary orders as is directed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:BHK