Bombay High Court
Dhananjay Sangram KoliversusLiyakat Alahabax Nalband
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the 20% deposit requirement may be waived and the sentence suspended when the convicted person is indigent and the circumstances justify relief.
Summary
The applicant, Dhananjay Sangram Koli, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a bounced cheque in a truck purchase transaction and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of ₹21,77,000. He filed an interim application seeking suspension of the sentence and a waiver of the statutory requirement to deposit 20% of the fine, arguing extreme poverty and lack of criminal antecedents. The court noted that the truck was hypothecated and later auctioned by the bank, and that the applicant was the sole earner for his family, rendering the deposit requirement oppressive. Relying on precedents (Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. and Arup Kumar Sharma v. Ram Lakhan Gupta) that support waiving the 20% deposit in similar circumstances, the judge found merit in the applicant’s request. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the sentence was suspended pending the revision, and the applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of ₹15,000 with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the statutory requirement to deposit 20% of the fine under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be waived in cases of extreme poverty.
- Whether the sentence imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be suspended pending revision of the conviction.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138, 148
Subjects
- Section 138 NIA
- cheque bounce
- sentence suspension
- waiver of fine deposit
- interim application
- bail
- revision
Judgment
502-570-26-ia.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 570 OF 2026
IN
CR. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2026
Dhananjay Sangram Koli ….Applicant
Vs.
Liyakat Alahabax Nalband and anr ….Respondents
Mr. S. R. Patil, advocate for the Applicant
Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the State
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board.
2. Mr. Patil, learned advocate for the Applicant, seeks liberty to
add one more prayer as prayer clause (a1), that of waiver of 20% of
IRESH
MASHAL
minimum amount to be deposited as per the provision of Section
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
MASHAL
Date:
2026.09.10
19:25:28
+0530
3. Liberty as prayed is granted. Amendment to be carried
forthwith physically in the Court's copy, and thereafter within a
period of one week in online method.
1 of 5
Iresh
502-570-26-ia.doc
4. By the present Interim Application, the Applicant is seeking
suspension of sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kolhapur vide Judgment and Order dated 13 August 2026 in
Cri. Appeal No. 82 of 2024. The Applicant was convicted for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of six months and to pay
compensation of ₹21,77,000/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months vide Judgment and Order dated 16
August 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur
in S.C.C. No. 204 of 2022.
5. Mr. Patil, appearing for the Applicant, submits that the
Applicant has no criminal antecedents, he belongs to a very poor
family, and he is not in a financial status to deposit 20% of the
compensation amount. He was earlier working in a mobile shop and
has now been removed from the said job, and he is doing odd jobs
wherein he earns around ₹400/- to ₹500/- per day.
6. The case of the complainant was that there was an agreement
dated 25 December 2020 between the complainant and the
Applicant for purchase of a truck. A cheque was issued by the
2 of 5
502-570-26-ia.doc
Applicant which got bounced on presentation.
7. Mr. Patil submits that the truck was not in possession of the
present Applicant; it was hypothecated with a bank, and the bank
has later sold the said truck in an auction. The bank has also
initiated arbitration proceedings against the Complainant. He has
relied upon the judgment of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M. P. State
Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. and Ors reported in AIR Online
2023 (SC) 1103 and Arup Kumar Sharma Vs. Ram Lakhan Gupta,
reported in AIR Online, 2023 GAU. 432.
8. From the record, it appears that there was a transaction for
purchase of a truck and there was a cheque issued towards
consideration. The truck was never in possession of the present
Applicant as it was hypothecated with the bank, and for non-
payment of the bank loan dues, the bank has attached the said truck
and sold it in auction.
9. Since the Revision is against a conviction order, considering
the facts of the present proceedings, it will be necessary to hear the
parties on merits by suspending the sentence.
10. As far as the waiver of 20% of amount is concerned, the
3 of 5
Iresh
502-570-26-ia.doc
Applicant is ready to cooperate for speedy disposal of the Revision.
The two authorities relied upon by Mr. Patil, that of Jamboo
Bhandari (supra) and Arup Kumar Sharma (supra), squarely cover
the point of waiver of minimum 20% of the amount to be deposited.
11. The Applicant was earlier working in a mobile shop and has
thereafter been removed from his job, hence is doing odd jobs in
order to earn for his and his family’s survival. It is his case that he is
the sole earning member of his family. Therefore, I am of the view
that this is a fit case in which minimum deposit of 20% of the fine
amount needs to be exempted. Before the Sessions Court, a similar
kind of order was passed on 9 October 2024.
ORDER
I. Interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) and (a1).
II. The sentence imposed upon the applicant Judgment and
Order dated 16 August 2024 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur in S.C.C. No. 204 of 2022,
which was confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur
vide Judgment and Order dated 13 August 2026 in Cri.
4 of 5
502-570-26-ia.doc
Appeal No. 82 of 2024, stands suspended during the
pendency of the revision.
III. The applicant shall be released on bail upon
executing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two
sureties of the like amount.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
5 of 5
Iresh
Checking your session…