Archive · 3 Oct 2026
Cheque Bounce Appeal Deposits: Discretion, Not Automatic Requirement
When someone is convicted in a cheque-bouncing case, they may appeal the decision.
A law lets the appeal court ask them to pay at least 20% of the amount ordered by the trial court.
The payment is meant to help protect the complainant while the appeal is being decided.
The law gives the appellant 60 days to pay, with a possible extension of up to 30 days.
The article says courts should not treat the deposit as automatic in every case.
The Supreme Court has said an exception may be appropriate if the payment would be unfair or prevent someone from appealing.
Courts should explain their reasons when they make that exception.
The article calls for balancing the appellant’s right to appeal with the complainant’s interest in receiving payment.
Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows an appellate court to order a deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded at trial.
The statute sets a 60-day payment period, extendable by up to 30 days for sufficient cause.
In Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (2023), the Supreme Court said exceptions may be made where a deposit would be unjust or impair the right of appeal, with reasons recorded.
In Bharat Mittal v. State of Rajasthan (2025), the Supreme Court described the deposit as interim and intended to protect complainants’ claims while an appeal proceeds.
The article argues courts should consider the transaction, appellant’s conduct and grounds for waiver rather than apply the 20% benchmark mechanically.
- Who
- Appellants convicted in cheque-bounce cases, complainants, and appellate courts.
- What
- The article discusses whether appellate courts must require a deposit under Section 148 or may waive or reduce it in exceptional circumstances.
- When
- The article refers to Supreme Court decisions from 2023 and 2025 and a Madras High Court judgment from 2024.
- Where
- India.
- Why
- To balance an appellant’s right to challenge a conviction with a complainant’s interest in timely payment.
Appellant protections
Complainant protections
How the deposit rule should operate
Appellant protections
A deposit should not be imposed mechanically; courts may consider waiver or reduction in exceptional cases where it would be unjust or undermine the right of appeal.
Complainant protections
The statutory deposit helps prevent an appeal from delaying payment to a complainant following a conviction for cheque dishonour.
Purpose of the provision
Appellant protections
The appellant’s circumstances, including the cause pleaded for waiver and conduct, should inform the court’s decision.
Complainant protections
The deposit is an interim measure intended to protect the complainant’s claim while the appeal is pending, not a final determination of guilt.
- Relevant statute
- Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
- Deposit benchmark
- At least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court
- Payment deadline
- Within 60 days of the order, with a possible extension of up to 30 days for sufficient cause
- Jamboo Bhandari decision
- Supreme Court, 2023; recognized possible exceptions where the deposit would be unjust or impair the right of appeal
- Bharat Mittal decision
- Supreme Court, 2025; described the deposit as interim and referred a question about its application to a larger Bench
- Related High Court judgment
- C.R. Balasubramanian v. P. Eswaramoorthi (2024); the article says the Madras High Court called for application of mind