Section 148 NI Act Deposit Not a Routine Condition for Suspending Cheque-Bounce Sentence: Rajasthan High Court

Kunaram, convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, has an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 527/2024) pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan. On 06.02.2025 the appellate court suspended his sentence but directed him to deposit 20% of the fine before the trial court; on 24.09.2025 it rejected his application for exemption (para 1). He argued that the complainant had filed no application under Section 148 and that the condition was imposed in the belief that the provision is mandatory; he also pleaded serious illness and lack of income (paras 2-3). The State and the complainant defended the orders but, in the alternative, suggested an expedited hearing without the deposit (para 4).

Reading the two provisions together (para 6), the Court held that they operate in distinct fields (para 7). Section 430 of the BNSS lets the appellate court suspend a sentence and impose conditions to secure the appellant's presence or the orderly administration of justice, but it does not by itself authorise a fixed-percentage deposit as a precondition for suspension (para 7). Section 148, which opens with a non-obstante clause, is a separate special power to strengthen enforcement in cheque cases; the two must be exercised separately and independently, and the deposit power should be exercised on the complainant's application, not suo motu or as a routine condition of suspension (para 8). The power is "neither mechanical nor absolute": the accused must be heard and allowed to oppose the complainant's prayer, and a deposit may be ordered only after considering both sides and recording reasons (para 9). Quoting Jamboo Bhandari, the Court noted that the deposit is normally justified, but an exception may be made for recorded reasons where it would be unjust or deprive the appellant of the right of appeal, and that treating 20% as an absolute rule is an error (para 10).