ORDER : 1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 29.11.2024, 09.12.2024, and 11.12.2024 passed by the learned District & Sessions Court, Pali, in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2024 titled Pradeep Tusawda vs. Bhera Ram, whereby the lower appellate court is compelling the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, despite the waiver of the same by this Court. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner on 01.02.2018. The trial court, vide judgment dated 01.02.2024, convicted the petitioner and directed him to pay Rs. 14,88,695/- (inclusive of simple interest at 9%) to the complainant, with a further stipulation of two months' imprisonment in default of payment during the appeal period. Aggrieved by tha the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 27/2024 before the Sessions Court, Pali, challenging the said judgment. On 11.03.2024, the appellate court issued notice to the respondent and allowed the petitioner’s application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., suspending the sentence subject to the condition that 20% of the compensation amount, i.e., Rs. 2,97,739/-, be deposited within two months, failing which the suspension of sentence would stand vacated. Due to the petitioner’s financial incapacity and exceptional circumstances — including his father's execution of the loan agreement, his status as a daily wage earner selling junk, and the financial burden of his and his wife’s deteriorating health — an interim application dated 03.05.2024 was filed, seeking a waiver of the pre-deposit amount. The appellate court, vide order dated 25.09.2024, partly allowed the petitioner’s application by reducing the pre-deposit amount to Rs. 1,92,400/-, payable within 15 days. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SB Criminal Misc.Petition No. 7315/2024, titled Pradeep Tusawda Vs. Bheraram. This Court, vide order dated 21.10.2024, allowed the petition, modifying the lower appellate court’s order by completely waiving the condition of pre-deposit and directing the appellate court to proceed with the hearing of the appeal without insisting on the said deposit. Despite placing a certified copy of the High Court’s order before the appellate court, the District and Sessions Court, Pali, vide orders dated 29.11.2024, 09.12.2024, and 11.12.2024, allegedly misinterpreted the directions of this Court and compelled the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within one week. Despite placing a certified copy of the High Court’s order before the appellate court, the District and Sessions Court, Pali, vide orders dated 29.11.2024, 09.12.2024, and 11.12.2024, allegedly misinterpreted the directions of this Court and compelled the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within one week. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has preferred the present Miscellaneous Petition before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Upon examining the impugned orders dated 29.11.2024, 09.12.2024, and 11.12.2024 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali, this Court finds that the said orders suffer from a grave misinterpretation of this Court’s unequivocal directive issued in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7315/2024, wherein the condition of pre-deposit was explicitly waived. It is well settled that subordinate courts are bound by the authoritative pronouncements of superior courts, and any deviation from such directions tantamounts to judicial impropriety. The insistence upon a pre-deposit, despite this Court’s specific waiver, prima facie demonstrates a failure to adhere to the binding precedent set forth by this Court in its order dated 21.10.2024. 5. While the judicial record does not indicate any deliberate or willful defiance of this Court’s order, it cannot be overlooked that the learned District & Sessions Judge, being an officer of the senior District Judge cadre, is expected to exercise due diligence in the adjudication of matters before him. 6. In response to a notice issued by this Court, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali, submitted an explanation stating that the delay in incorporating the operative part of this Court’s order in the order sheet was an inadvertent clerical error by the typist, which was not rectified upon review due to workload and routine judicial proceedings. He emphasized that there was no intentional defiance of this Court’s order, as the appeal was continuously scheduled for hearings, and opportunities were provided for arguments. He further submitted that the alleged non-compliance was a bona fide mistake arising from administrative oversight, for which he expressed regret and assured due diligence in the future. 7. However, this Court notes that the explanation tendered by the learned District & Sessions Judge pertains only to the order dated 29.11.2024. Despite this, subsequent orders dated 09.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 were also passed in disregard of this Court’s explicit direction. 7. However, this Court notes that the explanation tendered by the learned District & Sessions Judge pertains only to the order dated 29.11.2024. Despite this, subsequent orders dated 09.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 were also passed in disregard of this Court’s explicit direction. Such an act cannot be entirely characterized as a mere inadvertent or casual lapse. Nevertheless, in the interest of upholding judicial discipline while adopting a compassionate view, this Court refrains from taking any further adverse action against the learned Judge. 8. The doctrine of "to err is human" must be viewed within the prism of judicial accountability and prudence. The enormity of caseloads before judicial officers is a well-recognized challenge; however, judicial discipline mandates that such errors must be promptly corrected. 9. In light of the foregoing observations and to uphold judicial propriety, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders as null and void ab initio, thereby dropping the proceedings against the petitioner. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Pali, is cautioned to ensure strict compliance with superior court directions in future adjudications. 10. Additionally, this Court reiterates that this very issue has been dealt with in CRLMP No. 7315/2024. However, for abundant clarity, it is once again reaffirmed that the petitioner shall not be compelled to deposit any amount as a precondition for the adjudication of his appeal. The appellate court is directed to proceed with the adjudication of Criminal Appeal No. 27/2024 strictly on merits, in conformity with the principles of judicial discipline and stare decisis. 11. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed, and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders stand quashed and set aside. 12. The stay petition disposed of.