Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rashmikant Zaverchand Shah, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mazgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.1995 of 2024. The petitioner had been convicted by the learned Magistrate in CC No.1137/SS/2021 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The petitioner appealed against the conviction and also filed an application for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while suspending the sentence, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition. The petitioner contended that this condition was harsh and without considering his financial capacity. The High Court observed that while the appellate court has the power to impose conditions under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such conditions must be reasonable and based on the facts of the case. The court noted that the impugned order did not record any reasons for directing the deposit of 20% of the compensation nor did it consider the petitioner's financial capacity. The High Court held that the condition was unsustainable and set aside the impugned order to the extent of the deposit condition. The matter was remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass a fresh order on the application for suspension of sentence, after hearing the parties and considering the financial capacity of the appellant. The petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Suspension of Sentence - Section 389 CrPC - Condition of Deposit - The appellate court while suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC has the power to impose conditions, but such conditions must be reasonable and based on the facts of the case. The court must record reasons for imposing a condition of deposit and consider the financial capacity of the appellant. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed deposit of 20% of compensation without any discussion on the appellant's financial capacity or reasons, which was held to be unsustainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Compensation - Section 138 NI Act - Deposit Condition - In a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the appellate court while suspending sentence can direct deposit of a portion of the compensation, but the quantum must be proportionate and not arbitrary. The court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances. The impugned order directing 20% deposit was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in directing the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspending the sentence, without considering the appellant's financial capacity and without recording reasons.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition in part. The impugned order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mazgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.1995 of 2024, to the extent it directs the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass a fresh order on the application for suspension of sentence, after hearing the parties and considering the financial capacity of the appellant. Rule made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Appellate court's power to impose conditions while suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC
- Requirement of recording reasons for imposing condition of deposit
- Consideration of financial capacity of appellant before directing deposit
