Orissa High Court
Priti Ranjan Pani vs Ratnakar Sethi on 18 June, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.229 of 2025
Priti Ranjan Pani .... Appellant
Mr. S.K.Nayak, Advocate
Mr. M.Padhi, Advocate
-Versus-
Ratnakar Sethi .... Respondent
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
18.06.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. No notice is issued to the opposite parties as the same is
not necessary, hence, dispensed with.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned order dated 19th February, 2025 as at Annexure-4
passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2025 by
learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Puri on the grounds
stated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned
court below directed the petitioner to deposit the 20% of the
compensation amount without any reason and the same is on
the higher side. It is further submitted that in the meantime,
NBWA has been issued against the petitioner by learned JMFC,
Page 1 of 4
Pipili on 20th May, 2025 in connection with I.C.C. Case No. 74
of 2022.
5. I.A. No. 459 of 2025 is filed today for staying
execution of the NBWA issued by the said court, which is
accepted and taken on record.
6. The contention is that the learned court below
straightaway could not have directed deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount as it has discretion to consider the
quantum in view of Section 148(3) of the N.I.Act.
7. Upon a reading of the impugned order dated 19th
February, 2025 as at Annexure-4, the Court finds that
learned court below as in usual course directed deposit of
20% of the compensation amount awarded to the opposite
party. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Jamboo
Bhandari Vrs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation Limited and others in Criminal
Appeal No. 2741 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4927
of 2023, discretion lies with the learned Appellate Court while
exercising powers under Section 148 of the N.I.Act.
Referring to a case law reported in 2019(11) SCC 341
therein, the Apex Court concluded that a purposive
interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the N.I. Act.
It has also been held that normally an Appellate Court would
be justified in imposing condition of deposit as provided in
Section 148 of the N.I. Act and in a case, where it is satisfied
that deposit of 20% would be unjust or imposing such a
Page 2 of 4
condition is to amount to deprivation of the right of appeal, an
exception can be made out with reasons specifically recorded.
8. In the case at hand, the petitioner claims that it should
have been less than 20% of the compensation amount to be
deposited by the petitioner. In other words, with the facts
pleaded on record, an exception is sought to be carved out by
the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order at
Annexure-4. The said aspect has not been independently
examined by the learned court below while directing the
petitioner to deposit such an amount @ 20% of the
compensation awarded in favour of the opposite party. Having
said that, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the petitioner
should be provided an opportunity to make out an exception to
the general rule of 20% deposit for consideration of learned
court below in the light of law decided by the Apex Court in
Jamboo Bhandari (supra) as the same would rather serve the
purpose and meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with the
direction as aforesaid to be complied with by learned Sessions –
cum-Special Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025
vis-à-vis the quantum of compensation amount to be deposited
by the petitioner in terms of Section 148 of the N.I.Act, keeping
in view the law laid down in the case referred to hereinabove
and thereafter, to pass necessary order as per and in accordance
with law and till such time, a decision is rendered, the
Page 3 of 4
execution of NBWA issued by learned JMFC, Pipili in I.C.C.
Case No. 74 of 2022 shall be kept in abeyance.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per
rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
kabita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CUTTACK
Date: 25-Jun-2025 21:20:31
Page 4 of 4