Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA No. 115/2025, IA No. 01/2025
Kusum Dhadwal Vs. State
06.10.2025
This is an application moved on behalf of appellant/
convict seeking exemption from depositing 20 % of the compensation/
fine amout.
Present: Ms. Sandhaya Gupta, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
appellant/convict (through VC).
Sh. Varchaswa Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/
appellant/convict (in Court).
Sh. S.K. Dubey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent.
Respondent no. 2 alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. Bhairav
Das.
1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict submits that the
appellant is a single mother of a 20-year-old male child; that the Ld.
Trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned judgment against
her, without due consideration of the material facts; that the
appellant/convict is currently unemployed, having resigned from her
banking position in 2023, and is therefore not in a financial position to
comply with the direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 04.08.2025 to
deposit 20% of the compensation/fine amount. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the appellant may be exempted from depositing the said
amount, to enable her to pursue the present appeal on merits.
2. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes the application
while submitting that the appellant was directed to deposit 20% of the
compensation/fine amount within 60 days of the order dated
04.08.2025, however, the appellant has failed to comply with the said
direction and has willfully disobeyed the order of this Hon’ble Court.
The present application has been filed only on 02.09.2025 i.e. nearly a
-- 1 of 5 --
month after the passing of the said order and without sufficient cause
for the delay or non-compliance.
3. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has further argued that
the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, was originally filed on 29.10.2015, and a significant amount of
time has already elapsed; that the plea of financial incapacity raised by
the appellant is wrong since, the appellant/convict is employed as a
Regional Manager in a bank and draws a substantial salary and she is
regularly being represented by two private Counsels before the Court.
It is further argued that the appellant/convict had furnished a FDR of
Rs. 2,00,000/- as surety at the time of furnishing her bail bond before
the Trial Court and she had also moved an application seeking
permission to travel abroad in the month of March/April, 2025, which
demonstrates that she possesses sufficient means to comply with the
direction of this Court and deposit 20% of the compensation/fine
amount.
4. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that
though the appellant/convict has left her banking job in the year 2023,
however, subsequently she was employed in a different organization
and the foreign trip in question was organised by her employer. It is
further submitted that the appellant has resigned from the said
employment in the month of August, 2025 and is currently
unemployed.
5. In response, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has argued
that no documentary proof or evidence is placed on record which
shows that appellant/convict is not currently employed; that even for
the sake of argument argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for
appellant/convict is considered true, then also, appellant/convict
-- 2 of 5 --
remained gainfully employed even after 2023 and till August, 2025.
Further, it was the informed decision of the appellant/convict to resign
from her job and has no bearing on the present case. Therefore, it can
reasonably be inferred that the appellant possesses adequate financial
means to comply with the direction of this Hon’ble Court and deposit
20% of the compensation/fine amount.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 148 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as under:
148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal
against conviction
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under
section 138, the Appellate Court may 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:
Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in
addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under
section 143A.
(2) The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within
sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not
exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Appellate Court on
sufficient cause being shown by the appellant.
(3) The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount
deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the
pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the
complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with
interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India,
prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty
days from the date of such order.
6. The objective of Section 148 of NI Act is to strengthen
the enforcement mechanism for cheque dishonour cases under Section
138 NI Act and to ensure greater accountability on the part of the
-- 3 of 5 --
convicted person during the pendency of an appeal. Recognizing the
delay caused by frivolous or dilatory appeals, the legislature
introduced Section 148 of NI Act through the Negotiable Instruments
(Amendment) Act, 2018 to deter such tactics and ensure that
complainants are not unduly prejudiced after securing a conviction.
By imposing condition of a minimum deposit of 20% of the
compensation or fine amount, the provision balances the appellant’s
right to appeal with the complainant’s right to timely justice. The
deposit acts as a safeguard against meritless appeals and underscores
that once a person is convicted, the presumption of innocence no
longer operates. Thus, the provision furthers both judicial efficiency
and public confidence in the sanctity of financial instruments such as
cheques.
7. In the present case, the sole ground urged by the
appellant/convict is that she is unable to arrange funds to deposit 20%
of the compensation/fine amount as directed by the order dated
04.08.2025. However, no supporting documents have been placed on
record to substantiate her claim of financial hardship. Apart from the
bald assertion, the appellant/convict has not shown any exceptional
circumstances that would justify exemption from the statutory
requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act.
Having regard to the fact that the original complaint
under Section 138 NI Act was filed nearly a decade ago in October
2015 and considering the statutory rights of the complainant as a
victim of a dishonoured cheque and in balancing the equities and the
legislative intent underlying Section 148, this Court finds no sufficient
or compelling reason to interfere with the direction requiring the
deposit of 20% of the compensation/fine amount. The appellant/
-- 4 of 5 --
convict has failed to establish genuine financial incapacity or any
exceptional hardship warranting waiver of the statutory requirement.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed with a direction to
the appellant/ convict the deposit the 20% of the compensation/fine
amount before the Ld. Trial Court within a week of this order.
8. The application stands disposed of. Copy of this order be
given dasti to both the parties and be also sent to Ld. Trial Court for
information.
(SURABHI SHARMA VATS)
ASJ-04/Shahdara/KKD Courts,
Delhi/06.10.2025
-- 5 of 5 --