Appellate Courts must consider personal hardships and partial deposits before rejecting extensions under Section 148 NI Act.

The applicant was convicted in Case No. SC/NIA/12972/2007 and subsequently filed an appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence under the BNSS.

On 11.03.2026, the appellate court suspended the sentence on the condition that the applicant deposit 25% of the compensation amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

The applicant deposited Rs. 62,500/- but sought an extension of time for the balance, citing his age (66 years), medical ailments, and financial hardship.

The appellate court rejected the extension on 22.04.2026, and consequently, the Trial Court (JMFC) cancelled the applicant's bail bonds and issued an arrest warrant on 25.04.2026.

The applicant moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash these orders.

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which grants appellate courts the power to order a deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation.

Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 446, which clarified that the deposit under Section 148 is a discretionary power and not an inflexible rule; exceptional circumstances may justify a relaxation or waiver of this condition.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The High Court observed that while the initial order to deposit 25% was lawful, the power under Section 148 of the NI Act is discretionary rather than mandatory in every circumstance.

The court found that the appellate court, in its order dated 22.04.2026, failed to "extensively examine" the specific grounds of advanced age, medical condition, and financial hardship pleaded by the applicant.

By depositing a substantial portion (Rs. 62,500/-), the applicant demonstrated a bona fide intention to comply.

The court reasoned that the ends of justice require a balance between the statutory objectives of the NI Act and the applicant's right to prosecute his appeal.

The court determined that the JMFC’s immediate issuance of an arrest warrant was premature as the applicant was not absconding and had shown partial compliance.

It declined to quash the original suspension order dated 11.03.2026 but set aside the order denying the extension (22.04.2026) and the consequential order issuing the arrest warrant (25.04.2026).

The matter was remanded to the 27th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, for fresh consideration of the extension application, specifically accounting for the applicant's age, health, and financial status.

The court ordered that the arrest warrant remain stayed until such reconsideration, provided the applicant appears before the appellate court on 05.08.2026.