Karnataka HC Lowers Ailing Cheque-Bounce Convict’s Sentence-Suspension Deposit To 10% Of Fine, Citing Medical Records

In brief

The question

1. Whether the First Appellate Court’s direction requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine and compensation as a condition of suspension of sentence warranted interference

The court held

The petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the fine before the Trial Court within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

Upon deposit, the sentence would remain suspended, subject to compliance with the bond and surety conditions imposed by the First Appellate Court

The First Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks of production of the certified order; the parties were directed to cooperate and not seek adjournments for arguments

01Facts

The respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹5,10,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the cheque until realization; in default, he was to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment

p. 3

The petitioner appealed and sought suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The First Appellate Court suspended the sentence subject to, among other conditions, deposit of 20% of the total fine and compensation within 60 days

pp. 2–4

The petitioner sought modification of that deposit condition, relying on his medical condition and the medical documents produced before the High Court

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the First Appellate Court’s direction requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine and compensation as a condition of suspension of sentence warranted interference

pp. 4–5, 7

ii.2. Whether the deposit condition should be reduced in light of the petitioner’s medical condition and the documents produced before the High Court

p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers an appellate court to suspend execution of a sentence pending appeal, subject to appropriate conditions.

The conviction arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner relied on Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 10 SCC 446, in challenging the deposit condition

p. 4

however, the High Court did not set out or apply a specific legal proposition from that decision.

It held that the First Appellate Court’s 20% condition disclosed no error, but considered modification justified in the interests of justice in view of the petitioner’s ailments and supporting medical documents

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 389

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

04Reasoning

The High Court found no error in the First Appellate Court’s order requiring a 20% deposit as a condition of suspension

p. 7

Nevertheless, having considered the petitioner’s medical documents, it concluded that the condition should be modified in the interests of justice.

It therefore reduced the required deposit to 10% of the fine, while preserving the other conditions concerning the bond and surety

pp. 7–8

05Holding

The petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the fine before the Trial Court within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

p. 8

Upon deposit, the sentence would remain suspended, subject to compliance with the bond and surety conditions imposed by the First Appellate Court

p. 8

The First Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks of production of the certified order; the parties were directed to cooperate and not seek adjournments for arguments

pp. 6–7

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF