- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15876 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. ROOPA HARI GANESH W/O HARI GANESH A8GED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW NO. 9 OLD NO. 72, ATALLAH TOWERS ‘T’ BLOCK, 9TH STREET ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI – 600 040. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JYOTHI S. K., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. RJ RISHIKARAN PROJECTS PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT PENT HOUSE RJ MANOR APARTMENTS 11/A, 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. RATHNAKAR SHETTY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GURU PRASAD C.REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED IN I.A. NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.25344/2025 BY THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WITH RESPECT TO Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 THE CONDITION OF DEPOSITING 20% OF THE AMOUNT AND FURNISHING LIKE SUM SURETY AND THEREBY ALLOWING I.A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27.09.2025, passed by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby, an application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1, seeking suspension of sentence is allowed, subject to condition of deposit of 20% as is obtaining under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’), in Crl.A.No.25344/2025. 2. Heard Smt. Jyothi S.K., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Guru Prasad C. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent - complainant. The petitioner gets convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The concerned appellate Court suspends the sentence by the following order: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 “O R D E R Keeping IA No.1 pending for consideration, impugned judgment and order passed by XXXIV A.C.J.M., Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, dated 19.08.2025 in CC No.51694/2021 is hereby suspended on condition that appellant shall deposit 20% of fine amount and also execute personal bond for balance fine amount with like- sum one surety before trial court on or before 28.10.2025. For compliance of the order. Call on 28.10.2025.” Though the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAMBOO BHANDARI V/S. MADYA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446 is referred, there is no application of mind while directing to deposit 20% of the fine amount. 4. In an identical circumstance, in Crl.P.No.344/2026 disposed on 14.01.2026, this Court has passed the following order: “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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 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 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1144 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 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 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 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 fine 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. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (a) Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part. (b) The order dated 27.09.2025, in Crl.A.No.25344/2025 passed by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, stands quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5477 CRL.P No. 15876 of 2025 (c) 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. (d) In the light of the order of suspension being granted to the petitioner, the same shall continue till further orders are passed at the hands of the concerned Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:SS