Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (11) TMI 487 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Challenge to order directing deposit of 30% of composition amount in lieu of suspension of sentence imposed by trial Court under S. 482 CrPC.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the order directing the accused to deposit 30% of the composition amount in lieu of suspension of sentence imposed by the trial Court.
2. The Additional Advocate General cited S. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, amended in 2018, allowing the appellate court to direct the accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial Court for suspension of sentence.
3. The High Court found that the appellate court has the jurisdiction to impose the condition of depositing a minimum of 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence imposed by the trial Court, as per S. 148 of the Act.
4. The petitioner argued that since the complaint was filed before the amendment in S. 148, the condition should not apply. However, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, the High Court held that the amendment can be applied retrospectively.
5. The High Court emphasized that the purpose of the amendment was to prevent delay tactics in cases of dishonored cheques, and the discretion of the appellate court to order the deposit is in line with the objectives of the Act.
6. The High Court rejected the argument that the use of "may" in the amended S. 148 gives discretionary power to the appellate court, stating that the word "may" is generally construed as "shall" in this context, and the condition serves the purpose of speedy disposal of cases related to dishonored cheques.
7. Consequently, the High Court modified the order to require the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two months, considering the substantial liability of the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the order to deposit 30% of the composition amount, citing the applicability of the amended S. 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Supreme Court's judgment allowing retrospective application. The modification required the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two months, aligning with the purpose of the Act to expedite cases related to dishonored cheques.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates