1 42-revn-158-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 158 OF 2026 Sunil S/o Vasant Pant Versus Gajanan S/o Baliram Maldhure Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri S.S.Chopde, Advocate a/w Shri A.S.Patrikar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.A.Kadu, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. The applicant has filed the present revision thereby challenging the order dated 10.06.2026, whereby mandatory deposit of 20% of amount of compensation, for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal came to be waived by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025. 2. Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Appellate Court has mechanically waived the condition of deposit of the 20% of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 while deciding the application for SKNair 2 42-revn-158-26.odt suspension of sentence filed by the non-applicant/accused herein. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the accused/non-applicant is a habitual defaulter and against whom there are 18 cases pending. Learned Appellate Court has recorded that the imposition of such 20% of the compensation amount will be unjust or would deprive the appellant the right of appeal, which is necessary criteria to be considered while granting exemption of payment of 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence, the impugned order is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable and call for interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction. The impugned order may therefore be set aside by directing the non-applicant/accused to pay the 20% of compensation amount. 3. On the other hand, Shri Kadu, learned counsel for the non- applicant submits that learned Appellate Court has applied its mind to the defence taken by the non-applicant/accused. The documents of money lending transactions were recovered from the applicant/complainant. The applicant/complainant is also involved in several such money lending cases filed by the borrower against him. The non-applicant/accused has taken defence that the cheques were issued SKNair 3 42-revn-158-26.odt out of the money lending transaction between the applicant and the non-applicant/accused. The said defence was found to fall within the realm of preponderance of probabilities and hence learned Appellate Court has found that an exceptional case was made out by the non- applicant and has waived the condition of imposition of 20% of the compensation amount for suspending the sentence and the learned Appellate Court has just rightly suspended the sentence without insisting upon the payment of 20% amount of compensation and such course is permissible in view of the judgment of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others reported in 2023(10) SCC 446. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained. 4. I have also gone through the order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court while deciding the application of sentence below Exhibits 1 and 5 in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025. I have also gone through the judgment and order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in SCC No. 288 of 2014 while convicting the non-applicant. The perusal of the record shows that the non-applicant is involved in earlier cases SKNair 4 42-revn-158-26.odt filed by Manohar Barse under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned convicting Court has also recorded that there are multiple cases filed against non-applicant/accused by some private individuals and financial institutions. The applicant has placed on record list of 18 such cases pending against the accused Gajanan Maldhure. The perusal of the said observation as well as the material now produced on record, shows that the applicant is a habitual defaulter which fact is not even taken into consideration by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati while rejecting the application vide order dated 10.06.2026. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandara Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., and others (supra) was pleased to observe as under: 6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, 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. SKNair 5 42-revn-158-26.odt 6. Thus, normally the Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 i.e. minimum 20% of the compensation amount. However, only when the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of minimum 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, an exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. Thus, the condition precedent for waiving of such 20% compensation condition, should be to follow the guidelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited (supra). The learned Appellate Court has failed to record that the imposition of 20% compensation amount would be unjust or such condition would deprive the appellant the right of appeal. The impugned order does not consider the list of cases registered against the non-applicant Gajanan. There were several such multiple cases against the applicant. Hence, the impugned order which waives the condition of minimum 20% condition of compensation amount for suspending of sentence is passed mechanically and without proper application of mind.The learned Appellate Court has committed an error which needs to be corrected by this Court. SKNair 6 42-revn-158-26.odt However, taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel Shri Kadu that hearing of the appeal is already under way and that the accused has completed his argument and the appeal would be decided shortly, instead of directing the appellant to deposit 20% compensation amount, some lesser percentage of compensation amount, can be directed, hence, I am inclined to pass the following order. ORDER i. The criminal revision is partly allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025 below Exhibits 1 and 5 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii The substantive sentence imposed upon the non-applicant/accused by the trial Court is hereby suspended subject to the non-applicant/accused depositing amount of 10% of the compensation amount before the learned Appellate Court. iv. Since, the learned counsel for the non-applicant/accused submits that the non-applicant/accused has completed hearing of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court shall decide the appeal expeditiously and not beyond the period of three months from today. SKNair 7 42-revn-158-26.odt iv. The substantive sentence shall remain suspended subjected to the non-applicant/accused depositing an amount of 10% of the compensation i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of order. v. Failure on the part of the non-applicant/accused to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks shall result in the cancellation of suspension of sentence order, and the non-applicant/accused shall be arrested by issuing non-bailable warrant by the Appellate Court. Criminal revision is disposed of accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 19:34:02