Sakshi Electronics Thru. Ram Prasad vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Sakshi Electronics, through Ram Prasad, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2024. The appellate court, while granting bail, directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- out of a total fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- imposed by the trial court. The applicant contended that this deposit amount was excessive and beyond their financial capacity, hindering their right to appeal. The applicant relied on Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court judgments to support their plea for modification or deletion of the condition. The State opposed the prayer, citing provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

Held

The Court held that the applicant has the liberty to move an appropriate application before the appellate court where Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2024 is pending. This application should seek consideration of the prayer for modification or deletion of the deposit condition in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in *Jamboo Bhandari (supra)*. The Supreme Court in *Jamboo Bhandari* held that while appellate courts are generally justified in imposing the condition of deposit as per Section 148 of the N.I. Act, exceptions can be made if the condition is unjust or amounts to deprivation of the right of appeal. The appellate court must record specific reasons if it decides to grant suspension of sentence without imposing the 20% deposit condition. The Court directed that if such an application is filed within ten days, the appellate court shall dispose of it strictly in accordance with law. The judgments in *Bijay Agarwal* and *Udain Sengar* were distinguished as factually different.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the appellate court to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- out of a Rs. 9,00,000/- fine, as a prerequisite for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2024, is excessive and warrants modification or deletion, considering the applicant's financial condition? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The condition to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- is excessive and unaffordable due to poor financial condition, potentially depriving them of their right to appeal. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.* and a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in *Jagdish Arora and another vs. Union of India Through The Senior Intelligence Officer GST Intelligence*, which indicated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to modify or delete bail conditions. Revenue/State: The prayer should be opposed based on the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in *Surinder Singh Deswal alias Col. S. S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi* and *Bijay Agarwal vs. M/s Medilines*, and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in *Udain Sengar vs. Sate of U.P. and another*.