At time of granting bail in case of offence of dishonour of cheque, condition requiring accused to deposit 20% of cheque amount in Court is erroneous

Accused prosecuted for the offence of cheque dishonour. After the trial, Court took cognizance of the case against him and issued summons to him for his appearance in the Court. As accused refused to receive the summons, a Non-Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.) was issued against him to secure his presence in the Court. The said N.B.W. was executed and the accused was arrested and he was produced before the trial Court. Thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. When he has applied for bail before the trial Court, the Trial Court by its order enlarged him on bail on certain conditions. As per condition No.2, he was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the Court within two months from the date of his release on bail. Accused submits that as the cheque amount is Rs.22,00,000/-, 20% of the cheque amount would be Rs.4,00,000/-.

Newly inserted Section 143A in the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 02.08.2018, enables the trial Court to direct or order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount that the present condition was imposed by the trial Court at the time of granting bail. Even as per the said amendment, it is only when the accused pleads not guilty in a summary trial or summons case or when upon framing of a charge in any other case, the stage of directing the accused to pay interim compensation would arise.

It is clear from Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that before the accused pleads not guilty in summary trial or summons case or before framing a charge in any other case, the Court is not empowered to order the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.

So, the question of pleading guilty or not as required under newly inserted Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only when the substance of the accusation is explained to the accused in the trial Court. That stage did not arise in the case before Court to invoke the amended provision of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments. Act. Therefore, imposing the said condition to deposit 20% of the amount at the time of granting bail, is unsustainable under law.

Appearing Counsel/s: N.Ashwani Kumar, Y. Mahalakshmi

Conviction under S. 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is invalid when the accused persons are acquitted under S. 379 IPC for theft arising from the same transaction.

AIR 2025 SC 3890 : AIROnline 2025 SC 760 Legal principles "In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge.", "Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires that the property is proved to be stolen property.", "If the prosecution fails to establish

Benefit of maternity leave with allowance to Contractual employee

AIROnline 2022 KER 275 An educational society CPAS is an "establishment" under S. 2(1)(b) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the term covers any establishment under State law, not only commercial entities. Hence MB Act's applicable to contract employees in establishments like CPAS. Further

Legal Principles Regarding First Appeal S. 96 of Civil P C

AIROnline 2025 MAD 723 "Right of first appeal is a substantive, valuable right and not merely procedural.", "Unless expressly excluded by statute, the right of appeal cannot be limited or taken away by subsequent legislation.", "Appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "Judicial

Read next