Deposited compensation may be released pending revision, with a restitution undertaking required for the balance.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonour of a cheque for Rs.11 lakh and was ordered to pay Rs.15 lakh as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

He challenged the appellate court’s deposit condition and its subsequent revocation of suspension of sentence; he also filed a revision against the judgment upholding his conviction and directing payment of compensation.

He deposited Rs.3 lakh in one proceeding and Rs.12 lakh in the revision. The complainant had already withdrawn Rs.6 lakh from the latter deposit, subject to an undertaking to refund it if the petitioner succeeded.

Despite opportunities, the petitioner filed no reply to either release application.

Whether the remaining deposited amounts could be released to the complainant while the petitioner’s revision against conviction and compensation remained pending, subject to an undertaking to refund the amounts if required.

Whether the challenges concerning suspension of sentence and the deposit condition required adjudication after the criminal appeal had concluded.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, governed the underlying cheque-dishonour prosecution, and Section 357(3) CrPC provided the basis for the compensation order.

The Court proceeded on the basis that compensation already ordered and deposited could be released provisionally, while protecting the petitioner’s position through an undertaking requiring restitution if the revision succeeded or restitution was otherwise ordered.

The judgment cites no separate statutory test or precedent for provisional release; it followed the approach in its earlier order of 16 December 2025 in the same revision.

The appellate court had upheld the conviction and the compensation direction, although the sentence had been suspended subject to the outcome of the pending revision.

The complainant had therefore been awarded compensation, while the petitioner’s challenge to that award remained unresolved.

Given that the petitioner had not opposed either release application despite having been given opportunities, the Court found that continued retention of the deposits would delay the benefit of the compensation. It considered the complainant’s undertaking to refund the released sums sufficient protection for the petitioner pending the revision.

Release of the latter amount was conditional on the complainant furnishing an affidavit undertaking to refund the amount as directed if the revision succeeded or restitution was otherwise ordered.

The Registry was directed to prepare a consolidated statement of deposits, interest and prior disbursements before payment.

The release applications were disposed of; CRL.M.C. 1142/2024 and CRL.M.C. 2138/2024 were disposed of as infructuous, and the revision remained pending for final hearing on 16 February 2027.