CRLREV/661/2026 of MANJULATA BISWAL Vs DIBYAJYOTI JENA on 9 September 2026

ORDER

09.09.2026

01.

1. Heard Mr. Gaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party.

2. Instant CRLREV is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27th July, 2026 as at Annexure-5 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udala, whereby, an application as per Annexure-3 seeking exemption from depositing 20% of compensation amount as directed in terms of Section 148 of N.I. Act was declined and rejected on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Gaya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady, a ration card holder and belongs to BPL category and therefore, is unable to comply the order of the learned court below vide Annexure-5 as she is required to deposit 20% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.16.5 lacs. The further submission is that the alleged cheque was for an amount of Rs. 15 lacs, which on default, the complaint is filed by the opposite party and it has led to the passing of the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-1 in 1.C.C. Case No.31 of 2025 and the same is challenged in the appeal, wherein, the application as per Annexure-3 was moved but the exemption as prayed for was denied, hence, the revision. Referring to the decision in Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited & others (2023) 10 SCC 446, Mr. Gaya, learned counsel submits that the learned court below ought to have allowed exemption or at least waived or suitably reduced or deferred the deposit till final disposal of the appeal but it has been denied outrightly, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 27th July, 2026 at Annexure-5 is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party would submit that the learned court below did not commit any error or serious wrong in denying such exemption complying the statutory requirement under Section 148 of the N.I. Act and rightly rejected the application i.e. Annexure-3 followed by the impugned order at Annexure-5. It is further submitted that the learned court below has also taken judicial notice of the Apex Court’s decision in Muskan Enterprises & another Vrs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046 and correctly reached at a conclusion that the exemption should not be permitted.

5. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and she has been directed to undergo SI of six months and to pay fine/compensation of Rs.16.5 lacs with a default sentence of three months.

6. In Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the Apex Court held and observed that Section 148 of the N.I. Act needs a purposive interpretation and hence, the Appellate Court, if in case satisfied, may reduce the amount to be deposited thereunder. It has been observed therein that in a case where a court of appeal is satisfied that the conditions of deposit of 20% would be unjust or imposing such a condition may amount to deprivation of the right of the appeal, exception may be carved out stating the reasons therefor. A similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Muskan Enterprises (supra), wherein, it has been concluded that the Appellate Court has the discretion to waive the deposit of 20% of the awarded amount, if there are exceptional circumstances exist.

7. Considering the above settled position of law, even though there is a statutory deposit to be made in appeal, a discretion lies with the Appellate Court to consider as to what would be the appropriate amount for deposit in terms of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and to pass orders keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each particular case. It is not that there may be total exemption and under certain circumstances, the amount of deposit may even be reduced and therefore, the Appellate Court is to exercise the discretion properly. In fact, a judicial application of mind is necessary to consider any such exemption partial or full. Having regard to the above, considering the submissions of Mr. Gaya, learned counsel and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Chairman of Udala Block, though claims to be the member of BPL Category, this Court is inclined to hold that there cannot be full exemption and that she should instead be directed to deposit half of 20% amount directed by the learned court below, as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that in the event, half of 20% of the compensation amount is deposited in connection with Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2026 by the petitioner, the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udala, shall entertain the same and thereafter to proceed to hear and ensure disposal of the same in accordance with law upon her appearance/surrender on 18th September, 2026 to receive further orders.

10. Issue urgent copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Balaram Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:26:29 Signature Not Verified