Does the repeal of the 2018 Amendment Act wipe out the Section 148 NI Act deposit? The Rajasthan High Court has said no: the requirement of at least 20% of the compensation awarded survives in appeals pending against cheque dishonour convictions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jaipur: Holding that the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 does not affect Section 148 of the NI Act, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed four petitions by a company and its director challenging appellate orders that required them to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded against them in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cases [A.L.D. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Baljeet Singh and connected petitions].
Justice Anil Kumar Upman decided the matter on September 25, 2026, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3693, 3696, 3707 and 3708 of 2026.
Why the repeal made no difference
Section 148 continues to apply, the Court held. It relied on the saving clause in Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jethanand Betab and Independent Schools’ Federation of India, and Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. An amendment that has been incorporated into the parent Act keeps operating even if the amending Act is later repealed.
Om Prakash Suthar was distinguished on the ground that it did not appear to have considered the saving clause or Section 6-A.
Four appeals, about Rs 2.31 crore in deposits
The petitioners, A.L.D. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and its director Deepak Kumar, had challenged orders dated May 1, 2026 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Behror. In four appeals against convictions under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Appellate Court had directed them to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded under Section 148. The compensation in the four cases comes to about Rs 11.57 crore in all, and the deposits ordered total about Rs 2.31 crore. The complainant is Baljeet Singh.
For the petitioners, the argument was that Section 148 uses the word “may”, so the court has a discretion and cannot order the deposit mechanically. They also contended that the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 repealed the 2018 Amendment Act that introduced Section 148, so the provision no longer applies. They relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Om Prakash Suthar and the Supreme Court’s decision in Jamboo Bhandari.
The complainant responded that, under Jamboo Bhandari, deposit is the normal rule, and that disputes about the underlying transaction are for the appeals.
No exceptional circumstance on hardship
The Court found no exceptional circumstance. The second petitioner had admitted signing the cheque and had claimed assets above Rs 100 crore, so financial hardship was not accepted as a ground to interfere. Nor did the impugned orders show any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.
All four petitions were dismissed. The Appellate Court was directed to try to conclude the pending appeals within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The appeals against conviction remain pending, and nothing in the order is a view on their merits.
Why the order matters
With the 2018 Amendment Act now repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, the question whether the Section 148 deposit survives was open for litigants facing appellate deposit orders. This ruling answers it in favour of continued operation, on the settled principle that a provision absorbed into the parent statute outlives the amending Act.
It also signals that claims of financial hardship, without exceptional circumstances, will not by themselves displace the normal rule of deposit.
Case Title: A.L.D. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Baljeet Singh and connected petitions [S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 3693, 3696, 3707 and 3708 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar Upman, Rajasthan High Court
Date of Order: September 25, 2026