Karnataka High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Suspension of sentence requires deposit of 15% of the cheque amount, not the total fine.

M/S SLV CONCRETES vs SMT. K. MAMATHA SRINIVAS,

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Suspension of sentence requires deposit of 15% of the cheque amount, not the total fine.. M/S SLV CONCRETES vs SMT. K. MAMATHA SRINIVAS,. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners challenged the Sessions Court’s order directing them to deposit 10% of the amount awarded by the Trial Court as a condition for suspension of sentence pending appeal.

Source reference: p.3

The petitioners argued that the Trial Court’s award of Rs.90,10,000 included amounts beyond the Rs.60,00,000 total cheque amount, and that they had already paid Rs.80,00,000 toward the underlying debt.

Source reference: pp.3–4

The respondent disputed that the payment related to the transactions covered by the cheques and submitted that the Trial Court had awarded additional fine, while also contending that a statutory minimum deposit of 20% applied.

Source reference: p.5

The High Court considered whether to interfere with the deposit condition imposed in the pending appeal.

Source reference: pp.5–6
02

Issues

1. Whether the direction to deposit 10% of the Trial Court’s total award, including fine, should be modified where the two cheques totalled Rs.60,00,000.

Source reference: pp.3–4, 6

2. Whether the petitioners’ asserted payment of Rs.80,00,000 should affect the deposit condition at this stage, given the dispute over which transactions that payment concerned.

Source reference: p.6
03

Law Applied

The Court considered the suspension-of-sentence provisions identified in the judgment as Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Source reference: p.3

It also recorded the respondent’s submission that the law mandated a minimum deposit of 20%, but did not determine that submission as a separate issue.

Source reference: p.5

The Court applied its discretion to modify the deposit condition by reference to the cheque amount, rather than the larger total award.

Source reference: p.6
04

Reasoning

The Court left unresolved whether the petitioners’ Rs.80,00,000 payment related to the debt underlying the two cheques, holding that this question should be considered at the appeal’s final hearing.

Source reference: p.6

It nevertheless noted that the Sessions Court’s 10% condition had been calculated on Rs.90,10,000, although the aggregate cheque amount was Rs.60,00,000.

Source reference: p.6

To meet the interests of justice, it substituted a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount in both cases.

Source reference: p.6
05

Holding

The Court modified the impugned order and directed the petitioners to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in both cases within four weeks.

The amount is to be kept in a nationalised bank in a fixed deposit for one year, with auto-renewal.

Source reference: p.6

The criminal petition was disposed of.

Source reference: p.7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

5 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231

Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S SLV CONCRETESvsSMT. K. MAMATHA SRINIVAS,

Karnataka High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment