Arun Malhotra vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 01.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 09.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010551462023
+ CRL.M.C. 9373/2023, CRL.M.A. 35060/2023 & CRL.M.A.
30405/2025
ARUN MALHOTRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Simran Khurana, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Sunil Yadav, P.S. Ambedkar
Nagar.
Mr. Prem Kandpal, Advocate for
respondents no. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the complainant in CC No.
11160/2017 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act-03),
South District, Saket Courts, Delhi challenges the order dated
13.12.2023, whereby he has been directed to return the amount of
₹5,44,000/-, deposited under Section 148 of the Negotiable
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
Instruments Act, 1881 (the NI Act) by respondent nos. 2 and 3
herein and later released in his favour during the pendency of the
appeal by the appellate court.
2. The petitioner herein instituted complaint case bearing No.
11160/2017 under Section 142 of the NI Act alleging commission
of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act by the
second and third respondents herein. As per judgment dated
22.10.2021 and order on sentence dated 18.11.2021 the
jurisdictional magistrate found both the accused persons, that is,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein guilty of having committed the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and hence
convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of ₹27,20,000/- jointly
and severally, which was to be paid as compensation to the
petitioner/complainant within a period of 45 days.
2.1. Aggrieved by the trial court judgement, both the accused
persons/respondents 2 and 3 herein, filed Criminal Appeal No. 134
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
of 2021 before the Court of Session. As per order dated
01.10.2022, the appellate court allowed the application filed under
section 148 of the NI Act and the respondents were directed to
deposit 20% of the fine amount, that is, ₹5,44,000/-, imposed by
the trial court in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) within
60 days, in the name of the petitioner/complainant. Thereafter, the
appellate court, after hearing both sides vide judgment dated
30.10.2023, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of
the trial court, and acquitted respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
2.2. After the appeal was disposed of, the parties are seen to
have approached the trial court. The trial court vide impugned
order dated 13.12.2023, directed the petitioner herein to refund the
sum of ₹5,44,000/- to the accused persons, viz. , respondents 1 and
2 herein. Aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant has filed the
present petition.
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant that there is no statutory mandate requiring
the refund of the deposited amount once the accused is acquitted,
nor was there any independent application moved by the
respondents seeking such refund. The impugned order was passed
in haste without considering that the matter is sub judice before
this Court in the present proceedings, and without granting
adequate opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objections. It was
also pointed out that the Apex Court, by order dated 22.08.2025 in
SLP (Crl) No. 12216/2025, has not specifically directed the release
of ₹5,44,000/- to the respondents. It was also pointed out, that if at
all refund could have been directed, the same could be done only
by the appellate court and not by the trial court.
4. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3/accused persons that there is no infirmity
in the impugned order and hence no interference is called for. The
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State invited the
attention of the Court to Annexure P-9, the order dated 01.10.2022
of the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein it has been explicitly
stated that the petitioner had undertaken to repay/refund the
amount received by him subject to the final disposal of the appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this petition
is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned order calling for
an interference by this Court.
7. On 30.04.2025 when this petition came up for
consideration, this Court directed the petitioner/complainant to
deposit the amount of ₹5,44,000/- with the Registrar General of
this Court within three weeks. On 19.08.2025, the
petitioner/complainant apprised this Court that they had moved the
Apex Court challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 and so sought
an adjournment. It was submitted that in the event of the petitioner
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
failing to obtain any relief from the Apex Court, he would comply
with the order dated 30.04.2025 within a period of one week. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition
moved by the petitioner herein as per order dated 22.08.2025 in
SLP (Crl.) No. 12216/2025.
8. Despite directions being passed by three different courts,
the petitioner/complainant failed and neglected to comply with the
same and continued to retain the amount of ₹5,44,000/-. On
01.04.2026, it was brought to the notice of this Court that orders
dated 30.04.2025 and 19.08.2025 have not been complied with. On
the said date, there was no representation for the petitioner/
complainant also. Hence, the petitioner/complainant was directed
to appear in person or through counsel on the next date of hearing
which was on 06.04.2026. On the said date, along with the present
petition, CRL.L.P. 586/2023, CRL.M.A. 31972/2023, CRL.M.A.
35060/2023 and CRL.M.A. 30405/2025 came up for
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
consideration. The order of this Court dated 06.04.2026 reads
thus:-
“7. After the order in CRL.L.P. 586/2023 was dictated
and the date given, it was brought to the notice of this Court by
the learned counsel for the respondent in CRL.M.C. 9373/2023
that there has been repeated violation or non-compliance of the
orders of this Court which has been noticed by this Court on
01.04.2026 and the appellant was directed to appear in person
or through his counsel positively on the next date of hearing
which was on 04.04.2026. However, on 04.04.2026, the
lawyers abstained from work and, therefore, the matter was
adjourned to this day for the appearance of the appellant in
person or his counsel. However, Advocate Jai Batra, who had
appeared online in CRL.L.P. 586/2023, is not available despite
this Court repeatedly asking whether the counsel was available
online.
8. Therefore, both the cases shall stand posted to
tomorrow. The date already given in CRL.L.P. 586/2023 shall
stand cancelled.
9. It is made clear that the appellant in CRL.M.C.
9373/2023 shall be present in person tomorrow positively
along with his counsel.
10. List both the petitions on 07.04.2026.”
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
9. On 07.04.2026, it was submitted on behalf of the
petitioner/ complainant that a DD dated 07.04.2026 for an amount
of ₹5,44,000/- has been produced. The same was directed to be
deposited before the Registrar of this Court who was to comply
with the directions of the Apex Court in order dated 22.08.2025 in
SLP (Crl.) No. 12216/2025.
10. Therefore, it can be seen that the petitioner/ complainant
tried his best not to comply with the orders of this Court and it was
only when he was left with no choice, he deposited the amount.
11. Here it would be apposite to refer to Section 148 of the NI
Act, which reads:-
“ Section 148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment
pending appeal against conviction –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the
drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate
Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which
shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial Court: Provided that the
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to
any interim compensation paid by the appellant under
Section 143-A. (2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the
order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days
as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being
shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount
deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time
during the pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall
direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount
so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the
Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the
relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the
order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days
as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being
shown by the complainant.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. While sub-section (1) empowers the Appellate Court to
direct a deposit pending appeal, the proviso to sub-section (3)
unequivocally says that upon the acquittal of the accused, the
Court “shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
amount so released” along with interest within 60 days, which is
further extendable by 30 days. Therefore, the statute leaves no
scope for the petitioner/complainant to retain interim
compensation once the judgment of conviction has been set aside.
13. As noticed earlier after the appeal was disposed of by the
Sessions Court, it is seen that the parties approached the trial court
for release of the amount that was deposited by the respondents
herein before the Appellate Court under 148 of the NI Act. It is
true that the refund order should have been passed by the Appellate
Court instead of the trial court. However, in the light of the
subsequent developments in the case as revealed from the orders
hereinabove referred to, this Court is not inclined to set aside the
impugned order on the said sole ground. The petitioner/
complainant is seen to have resorted to all steps to see that the
orders of this Court despite specific directions being given, was
not complied with. When he moved the present petition as well as
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the appellate
court, in all fairness he ought to have deposited the amount before
this Court. That was never done. It was only when the petitioner/
complainant was left with no choice, the amount was deposited.
14. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)
NO. 12216/2025 dated 22.08.2025 reads thus:-
“1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave
petition is dismissed.
2. We, however, clarify that the sum of Rs.5,44,000/- (Rupees
five lakh forty four thousand) only must be deposited by the
petitioner before the Appellate Court, whereupon such court
shall ensure that the said sum is invested in a short-term
interest-bearing fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank.
The deposit shall be kept renewed till such time further orders
are passed by the High Court.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/
complainant that though the SLP was dismissed, the Apex Court
has still directed that the amount needs to be deposited in a fixed
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
deposit and not to be released to the respondents herein. It is true
that the amount was directed to be deposited before the Appellate
Court and it was the Appellate Court and not this Court which was
directed to renew the fixed deposit until further orders were passed
by this Court. The Apex Court has not in any way prevented this
Court from finally disposing of this CRL.M.C. Therefore, I
proceed to consider the CRL.M.C on merits.
16. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.10.2022 passed
by the Special Judge, NDPS/ASJ (South), Saket Courts, Delhi in
the application under Section 148 of the NI Act reads thus:-
“…..Accordingly, the application u/s 148 NI Act is allowed.
The appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount as
awarded by the Ld. Trial Court. The amount be deposited
within 60 days from today in the form of an FDR. The said
FDR should be in the name of the respondent and shall be
released to the respondent as and when requested. The
respondent undertakes to repay this amount / FDR so received
by him, subject to the disposal of this appeal.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
17. In the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner/
complainant before the appellate court and in the light of the
proviso to Sub-section (3) to Section 148 of the NI Act, the
petitioner/complainant is bound to refund the amount to
respondent nos. 2 and 3 as the appeal has ended in an acquittal.
Hence, I find no merits in the present petition and the same is
dismissed with liberty to the respondents herein, that is, respondent
nos. 2 and 3 to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by the
petitioner/ complainant herein pursuant to the orders of this Court
dated 07.04.2026.
18. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2026/ kd
CRL.M.C. 9373/2023 Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13