The Gujarat High Court has quashed a Sessions Court order that required a Section 138 NI Act convict to deposit the entire cheque amount of Rs. 20,00,000 as a condition for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Court held that such onerous conditions must not be imposed mechanically and must consider the appellant's financial capacity and the statutory right of appeal, substituting the condition with a 20% deposit and an undertaking to attend hearings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Singadiya Sanjaybhai Ramnikbhai, was convicted by a Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed him to pay compensation equivalent to the cheque amount. Three separate cheques were involved, in respect of which separate complaints had been filed, and similar orders were passed in all three complaints.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment with direction to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount
- Three separate cheques were involved, each forming the subject of a separate complaint
- The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 10 of 2026, 12 of 2026, and 11 of 2026 before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar challenging the conviction and sentence
- The learned Sessions Court, by order dated 09.01.2026, imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire cheque amount of Rs. 20,00,000 within 60 days as a condition for suspension of sentence
- The Sessions Court did not assign any special or cogent reasons for imposing the 100% deposit condition
- The respondent (complainant) alleged that the petitioner had remained absent before the Magistrate and the Appellate Court, and that the petitioner's advocate had filed a retirement pursis
Procedural History
- Date of conviction and sentence by Magistrate: Not specified in judgment
- Filing of Criminal Appeals: Criminal Appeal Nos. 10/2026, 12/2026, and 11/2026 filed before Sessions Court, Gandhinagar
- 09.01.2026: Sessions Court passed order imposing condition of deposit of entire cheque amount (Rs. 20,00,000) within 60 days for suspension of sentence
- 2026: Three Special Criminal Applications (Quashing) Nos. 2735, 2736, and 2749 of 2026 filed before Gujarat High Court challenging the Sessions Court order
- 21.10.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.K. Thakker
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Court order dated 09.01.2026 imposing the condition of deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 (100% of cheque amount) within 60 days, a stay on the operation of said condition, and substitution with reasonable and lenient conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Sessions Court was justified in imposing a condition requiring deposit of 100% of the cheque amount for suspension of sentence pending appeal under Section 138 NI Act, without assigning special reasons and without considering the appellant's financial capacity and the statutory right of appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned advocates Mr. Kavan K Patel and Mr. Vivek V Bhamare submitted that the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment with direction to pay 100% of the cheque amount as compensation. They contended that the learned Appellate Court had not assigned any special or cogent reasons for imposing the condition of deposit of the entire cheque amount. It was argued that the petitioner had preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction, and if the entire cheque amount was required to be deposited as a condition for suspension of sentence, the statutory right of appeal would be rendered illusory. The right of appeal being a statutory right, the onerous and unreasonable condition deserved to be quashed and set aside.
For the Respondent
Learned advocate Mr. Urvesh M Prajapati, appearing for respondent No. 2, submitted that upon consideration of the Rojkam (daily order sheet), the learned Court had noticed that the petitioner had neither remained present before the learned Magistrate nor regularly remained present before the learned Appellate Court. It was further submitted that even the advocate appearing for the petitioner had filed a retirement pursis. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it was submitted that the learned Appellate Court was justified in imposing the condition of deposit of 100% of the cheque amount, and no interference was warranted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the impugned order and found that the learned Appellate Court had not assigned any special or cogent reasons for imposing the condition requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire cheque amount. The Court observed:
"In the opinion of this Court, a condition which is onerous and incapable of being complied with ought not to be imposed mechanically. While imposing conditions for suspension of sentence, the learned Appellate Court is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including the financial condition of the petitioner and the fact that the appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
The Court further noted that when the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of conviction by preferring an appeal, instead of imposing a condition requiring deposit of the entire cheque amount, the learned Appellate Court could have imposed a condition requiring deposit of an appropriate percentage of the cheque amount, having regard to the requirement contemplated under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 148 NI Act empowers the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.
As regards the submission that the petitioner had remained absent before the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Appellate Court, the Court held that the said concern can be addressed by imposing an appropriate condition to secure the presence of the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 10 of 2026, 12 of 2026, and 11 of 2026, subject to the following directions:
- The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the learned Appellate Court to remain present on each and every date of hearing fixed by the learned Appellate Court, irrespective of the presence or absence of the advocate appearing for the petitioner.
- The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from 21.10.2026.
- The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the learned Appellate Court, within a period of one week from 21.10.2026, stating that he shall comply with the aforesaid conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mechanical Imposition Of Onerous Conditions Impermissible
Appellate Courts must not impose conditions for suspension of sentence mechanically. The Court emphasized that conditions which are onerous and incapable of compliance ought not to be imposed without considering the facts and circumstances of each case, including the financial condition of the appellant and the fact that the appeal challenges the conviction itself. Practitioners should argue for individualized assessment of conditions rather than blanket application of harsh terms.
Section 148 NI Act Provides Statutory Benchmark
The judgment reinforces that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates a minimum deposit of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. This statutory benchmark should guide Appellate Courts when imposing deposit conditions. Lawyers should cite Section 148 to resist demands for 100% deposit and advocate for proportionate conditions aligned with the statutory framework.
Attendance Concerns Addressable Through Undertakings
Where the prosecution raises concerns about the accused's past absence, the Court demonstrated that such concerns can be adequately addressed through undertakings to attend hearings rather than through excessive financial conditions. Practitioners should proactively offer attendance undertakings to counter prosecution arguments about flight risk or non-cooperation.
- File detailed affidavits disclosing financial capacity when seeking suspension of sentence
- Cite Section 148 NI Act as the governing standard for deposit quantum
- Offer undertakings for regular attendance to address prosecution concerns
- Challenge mechanical imposition of 100% deposit conditions as rendering statutory appeal illusory
