The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.590 of 2025 Jhadeswar Acharya …. Petitioner Mr. Debasnan Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 01. 1.
Decision
ORDER 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice vis-(cid:224)-vis opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the same is not necessary. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2024 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang, whereby, an application moved by him to allow a deposit less than 20% of the compensation amount has been declined. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo SI for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.4 lac, as against which, the appeal has been filed and is pending disposal before the learned court below. The further submission is that in the Page 1 of 5 appeal, the petitioner moved the application seeking reduction in the amount from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.30,000/- towards statutory deposit as he is not able to arrange 20% of the compensation amount as has been directed but it has resulted in passing of the impugned order as at Annexure-1. According to Mr. Das, learned counsel, the petitioner is not in a proper financial condition to comply such deposit, hence, the same should have been reduced by the learned court below but the application in that regard was rejected. The contention is that the learned court below is possessed of the jurisdiction to direct any such deposit less than 20% of the compensation and while advancing such an argument, a decision of the Apex Court in Muskan Enterprises Vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.5491 of 2024 dated 19th December, 2024 is placed reliance on. Apart from the above decision, three other case laws are cited, such as, Baiju Vrs. State of Kerala 2023 SCC OnLine Kerala 10204; Rakesh Gupta Vrs. Anand Singh Bhaduria of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRR No. 420 of 2025 (O & N) dated 15th February, 2025; and Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & others 2023 Live Law (SC) 776. The submission is that considering the poor financial condition of the petitioner, the amount as has been directed in terms of 148(1) of the N.I. Act is required to be reduced in the interest of justice. 5. Gone through the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 at Annexure-1. The learned court below, while Page 2 of 5 entertaining such an application received from the petitioner concluded that the order demanding 20% of the compensation amount cannot be recalled in view of Section 403 BNSS. But, considering the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the decisions cited (supra) and particularly, in the case of Jamboo Bhandari, the Court is of the view that a Court in appeal is having the jurisdiction to consider reduction in the amount or direct deposit less than 20% of the compensation awarded. In the case at hand, the Court had earlier directed such deposit of 20% of the compensation amount payable by the petitioner, whereafter, the application was received and it led to the passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1. According to the Court in a given circumstance, any such application, if received by the court in appeal, it should be entertained. The Court is also of the view that while demanding any such deposit but less than 20% of the compensation, a special case is to be made out. In other words, in the language of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), an exception is to be carved out while demanding a deposit for a lesser amount. In the case of the petitioner, as it appears, he alleged to have received the cheque in question as a friendly loan while running a business in selling shrimp and prawn feeds etc. But, on perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-1, the Court further finds that no such material has been placed before the learned court below, while claiming that the petitioner is having no means to comply the order. Having regard to the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and the other citations referred to Page 3 of 5 herein before, the Court is of the conclusion that the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to submit all the relevant documents before the learned court below for demanding reduction in the statutory deposit of 20% of compensation. In other words, considering the plea of the petitioner and the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel that the he has been in custody since 22nd July, 2025 and unable to arrange the amount to be deposited, one more opportunity should be provided to him to submit all such relevant documents to justify a deposit less than 20% as is directed for a decision by the learned court below, as such a course of action would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 6. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for reduction in the deposit of 20% of the compensation as has been directed under Section 148(1) of the N.I. Act and thereafter, to pass appropriate order thereon as soon as possible preferably within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order upon receiving all such documents from him. It is further directed that the above decision shall be keeping in view the case laws cited and ratio decided by the apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 at Annexure-1 is hereby set aside with the restoration of Page 4 of 5 the application to file for its fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. Balaram (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 10:47:43 Page 5 of 5