JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with in order to avoid further delay in disposal of the matter. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the portion of the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-67) (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.1874/2019. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The case of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is that they are accused in C.C.No.22570/2017 on the file of the XIII ACMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as trial Court), for having convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act), wherein, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused-petitioners and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1874/2019. Along with the appeal, they have also filed Interlocutory Application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspending the sentence passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court by allowing the Interlocutory Application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. suspended the sentence and ordered to release them on bail and also directed to deposit 25% of the fine amount before the trial Court within 60 days from 31.08.2019. The petitioners-accused obtained short-time for depositing the amount as ordered by the First Appellate Court and later did not appear before the First Appellate Court. However, assailing the direction to deposit 25% of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court has been challenged before this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has strenuously contended that the order of the trial Court is illegal. Therefore, directing the petitioners to deposit the fine amount of 25% is not acceptable. In case, the petitioners are not able to deposit the fine amount ordered by the First Appellate Court, they shall be ordered to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has strenuously contended that the order of the trial Court is illegal. Therefore, directing the petitioners to deposit the fine amount of 25% is not acceptable. In case, the petitioners are not able to deposit the fine amount ordered by the First Appellate Court, they shall be ordered to pay interest @ 18% per annum. In support of his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ajay Vinodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in LAWS(BOM) 2019 3 72 in Criminal Writ Petition 258/2019, 259/2019, 260/2019 dated 14.03.2019. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record goes to show that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. They have been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. In the same appeal, they have filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. The First Appellate Court by acting under Section 148(1) of N.I. Act directed the petitioners-accused to deposit 25% of the fine amount within 60 days vide order dated 31.08.2019. The same is challenged before this Court. The provisions of Section 148 of N.I. Act, which was amended by the legislature with effect from 01.09.2018, reads as under: '148. Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court: PROVIDED that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in additional to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under Section 143A.' 9. On bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 148 of N.I. Act which clearly empowers the First Appellate Court to impose and to direct the accused to deposit minimum 20% of the fine amount or compensation awarded by the trial Court. It is mandatory to impose 20% as minimum of fine/compensation. 10. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. It is mandatory to impose 20% as minimum of fine/compensation. 10. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others v. Virender Gandhi reported in AIR 2019 SC 2956 vide judgment dated 29.05.2019 has held as under: '12. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has requested to grant the appellants some more time (three months time) to deposit the amount as per the order passed by the first appellate court, confirmed by the High Court. The said prayer is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. It is submitted that as per amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the appellants accused have to deposit the amount of compensation/fine as directed by the appellate court within a period of 60 days which can be further extended by a further period of 30 days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellants. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the appellants were bonafidely litigating before this Court challenging the order passed by the first appellate court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the amount to be deposited is a huge amount, we grant further four weeks time from today to the appellants to deposit the amount as directed by the first appellate court, confirmed by the High Court and further confirmed by this Court. 13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision application/s, confirming the order passed by the first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation pending appeals.' 11. The judgment of the Bombay High Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered since the said judgment has been rendered on 14.03.2019 much prior to the judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal stated supra. The judgment of the Bombay High Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered since the said judgment has been rendered on 14.03.2019 much prior to the judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal stated supra. The Honble Apex Court in the said case has uphold the validity of Section 148 of N.I. Act for imposing minimum 25% of fine amount or compensation ordered by the trial Court. Even otherwise, if the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been committed by the accused subsequent to the amendment, the accused shall deposit up to 25% of cheque amount as interim compensation as per Section 143A (2) of N.I. Act. 12. Such being the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be acceptable that the impugned order under challenge is illegal. I do not find any error or illegality committed by the First Appellate Court while directing the appellants-accused to deposit 25% of the fine amount or compensation while suspending the sentence by invoking Section 148 of N.I. Act. Therefore, imposing condition directing the petitioners-accused to deposit 25% of fine amount cannot be interfered with. 13. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, as per Section 148 of N.I. Act, minimum 20% of the amount to be deposited by the petitioners. Therefore, considering the background, at the request of the learned counsel, I propose to modify the condition by reducing the amount from 25% to 20% as ordered by the First Appellate Court as per Section 148 of N.I. Act. 14. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners as special consideration, four weeks time is granted from today to deposit 20% of the fine amount. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1 of 2020 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2010 is also disposed of.