Can the waiver of 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act be granted when rigid enforcement would result in unjust deprivation of the right to appeal? This pressing question lies at the heart of recent judicial deliberations concerning the recovery of debts under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the case of Arjun Walia vs. Tarun Batra The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was recently called upon to navigate the delicate intersection of statutory mandates and human hardship. The matter began when Arjun Walia, having been convicted in a cheque dishonor case on May 9, 2025, sought to appeal the decision. Under the standard procedural requirements, the Appellate Court in Nuh directed him to deposit 20% of the total compensation awarded by the trial court as a prerequisite for staying his sentence. While this condition is a common fixture in financial litigation, the petitioner challenged it under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, arguing that his personal circumstances made such a financial demand not just difficult, but fundamentally unjust.
The mandatory 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act is often viewed as an inflexible prerequisite for filing an appeal. However, the case of Arjun Walia vs. Tarun Batra (2025) highlights that this rule is one of “structured discretion” rather than an absolute mandate. While the landmark ruling in Surinder Singh Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi (2019) established the 20% deposit as the “normal rule” to prevent dilatory tactics by debtors, subsequent jurisprudence has carved out essential exceptions. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (2023) The Supreme Court clarified that if a deposit order results in an “unjust deprivation of the right to appeal,” courts must record specific reasons for either imposing or waiving it. This nuanced approach was further echoed in Puneet Saluja vs. State (2024), where the Delhi High Court emphasized that a combination of insolvency and health issues constitutes “exceptional circumstances” requiring judicial empathy.
This case also highlights the shifting landscape of Indian criminal law with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the successor to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the BNSS represents a modern effort to streamline justice and protect the rights of all parties involved. By invoking Section 528 of this new Sanhita the inherent powers of the High Court the petitioner sought a remedy that looked beyond the letter of the law to its very spirit. The transition to the BNSS underscores a legal era that, while maintaining the substantive goals of debt recovery, provides a procedural canvas where the unique hardships of an individual can be weighed against the mechanical application of statutes.
In analyzing the rationale behind the final decision, the High Court focused on the specific reality of Arjun Walia’s life. The petitioner presented documented evidence of his advanced age and a debilitating medical condition, factors that the lower court had failed to address when it issued the blanket order for a 20% deposit. The High Court reasoned that because the lower court had not recorded any specific reasons for insisting on the deposit despite these clear hardships, the order lacked the necessary “reasoned approach” required by law. Consequently, the High Court maintained the integrity of the appeal process while setting aside the financial condition entirely. To balance this relief, the court related the context to the complainant’s right to a swift resolution by directing the Appellate Court to decide the main appeal within a strict four-week timeframe, ensuring that the waiver of the deposit did not result in an indefinite delay of justice.
Conclusion
The resolution of this matter reaffirms that the law is a living instrument that must remain sensitive to the human condition. By prioritizing the petitioner’s medical and age-related vulnerabilities over a rigid financial mandate, the judiciary demonstrated that procedural rules are servants to justice, not its masters. This balanced outcome serves the dual purpose of the legal system: it protects the rights of the infirm to seek redress without being barred by their own frailty, while simultaneously guaranteeing the complainant a rapid and final determination of the case. Through such nuanced interpretations, the court ensures that the transition into the BNSS era remains one of empathy and equitable fairness.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla
