A.Mehala vs Arulraja
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011477242026}
A.Mehala
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Arulraja
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.4366/2026,
in Crl.A.No.140 of 2026, on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, and set aside the direction to deposit
Rs.3,61,900/- contained in the order dated 07.10.2026.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s.Suthakar.J
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the appellant
in Crl.A.No.140 of 2026, pending on the file of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, assailing the order dated
07.10.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4366 of 2026, to the limited extent
of the condition of deposit imposed therein.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this
petition, are briefly stated as follows:- On a complaint lodged by the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner was tried in
C.C.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
(Fast Track Court, Magistrate Level), Tuticorin. By judgment dated
22.07.2026, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced
her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and
further directed her to pay a compensation of Rs.18,09,500/- within
a period of one month, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for a further period of two months.
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred Crl.A.No.140 of 2026 before the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, and simultaneously filed
Crl.M.P.No.4366 of 2026 under Section 430(1) of BNSS, seeking
suspension of the sentence pending disposal of the appeal. The
Appellate Court, by order dated 07.10.2026, suspended the sentence
on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. In addition, the petitioner was directed
to deposit a sum of Rs.3,61,900/-, being 20% of the compensation
amount awarded by the trial Court.
4. Aggrieved only by the condition directing deposit of
Rs.3,61,900/-, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner had specifically raised several grounds, both in the
memorandum of appeal and in the petition for suspension of
sentence, seeking exemption from the deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount. However, the Appellate Court, without
adverting to any of those grounds, has mechanically imposed the
said condition.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that when the
petitioner has made out a prima facie case for suspension of
sentence, the imposition of a pre-condition to deposit 20% of the
amount is onerous and is unsustainable in law. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following
decisions:-
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
(i)Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. and others, reported in 2023 INSC
822;
(ii)Muskan Enterprises Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in
2024 INSC 1046; and
(iii)C.R.Balasubramanian Vs. P.Eswaramoorthi, order of
this Court dated 22.01.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.947 of
2024.
7. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the materials available on record.
8. The question as to whether the deposit contemplated under
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be insisted upon
as a matter of course, while suspending the sentence pending appeal,
is no longer res integra. This Court, in C.R.Balasubramanian Vs.
P.Eswaramoorthi (2024:MHC:5897), decided on 22.01.2024 in
Crl.O.P.No.947 of 2024, after referring to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as follows:-
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
"Before drawing the curtains in this case, this Court
thought it fit to bring to the notice of the District
Judiciary the above two judgments, particularly, the
judgment of the Apex Court. While dealing with an
application for suspension of sentence or for grant of
bail when an appeal is filed against the conviction for
offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the
Courts must not mechanically impose a condition of
deposit of 20% of the compensation amount/cheque
amount u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When
any ground has been raised by the appellant for reducing
the percentage or for exempting the deposit of such
amount, it has to be dealt with by the appellate Court
and a reasoned order must be passed if the Court wants
to direct the appellant to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount/cheque amount. A copy of this
order shall be circulated to all the Principal District
Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu."
9. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner had raised
specific grounds in her petition for suspension of sentence seeking
exemption from the deposit. It was pleaded that she is a widow, that
she has no independent source of income and that she has no
criminal antecedents. However, the impugned order dated
07.10.2026 does not even advert to these grounds, much less render
any finding thereon. It is thus manifest that the Appellate Court has
failed to apply its mind to the grounds raised by the petitioner. The
impugned order, to that extent, runs contrary to the principles laid
down above and cannot be sustained. Consequently, this Court is of
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
the considered view that the matter has to be remitted to the
Appellate Court for fresh consideration of the plea of the petitioner
seeking exemption from depositing 20% of the compensation
amount.
10. The Appellate Court shall consider the grounds raised by the
petitioner and pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance
with law.
11. In the result,
(a)the order dated 07.10.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4366
of 2026 is set aside insofar as it directs the petitioner to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount, viz.,
Rs.3,61,900/-; and
(b)Crl.M.P.No.4366 of 2026 is remitted to the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi, for fresh consideration, limited to the
question of deposit, and the same shall be disposed of
on merits within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
12. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed to the extent
indicated above.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
To
The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
CRL OP(MD) No. 24430 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 09:01:56 pm )