9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1301 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Cancellation of suspension of sentence already granted to the petitioner(s) - failure to deposit 25% amount of compensation - Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 - HELD THAT - Despite the clear time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no deposit has been made by the petitioner(s) till date; rather they have even stopped appearing before learned Appellate Court as is clear from the impugned order dated 20.07.2019 itself. Even thereafter, on 31.07.2019, petitioner(s) did not appear and now the matter is stated to be pending on 09.10.2019. Thus, the petitioner(s) are misusing the judicial forums on one pretext or the other and have made the mockery of the orders, passed by the entire judicial hierarchy including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no hesitation to record that all these petitions have been filed with an ulterior motive to prolong the litigation and to harass the respondent/complainant so that he may not get his lawful claim despite being successful up to the highest Court of this Country. Impugned order reveals that even on 01.07.2019, petitioner(s) moved applications for seeking exemption from personal appearance as well as to grant adjournment on the pretext that they were going to file some miscellaneous application(s) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a hope to get some more time for making the deposit of the amount in question, but no such order has been produced by them. Learned Appellate Court, while showing magnanimity and taking an undue lenient view, accepted the request of the petitioner(s) and granted them more time uptill 20.07.2019 to comply with the order for deposit of amount. Again on the next date of hearing i.e. 20.07.2019, two more applications of similar nature were filed on behalf of the petitioner(s) for seeking exemption from personal appearance as well as for adjournment of the appeal(s), but learned Appellate Court found no option except to reject the same and rightly so, while observing that their absence is intentional and they were avoiding the Court proceedings deliberately. The offence under Section 138 of the Act is bailable, but petitioner(s) stand already convicted and their sentence have been suspended under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., which inter alia envisages that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, that if he is in confinement, be released on bail - the sentence of petitioner(s) was suspended by learned Appellate Court subject to deposit of 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by learned trial Court in favour of the respondent/complainant and also to furnish bail bond as well as surety bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in like amount. Thus, it cannot be said that sentence of the petitioner(s) has been suspended unconditionally or as a matter of course. This Court is of the firm opinion that impugned order(s), passed by learned Appellate Court while cancelling the suspension of sentence of the petitioner(s) on account of their failure to deposit 25% amount of compensation, are perfectly legal and justified, which do not warrant any interference by this Court by entertaining the present petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellate court's order to deposit 25% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. 2. Cancellation of bail due to non-deposit of the ordered compensation amount. 3. Applicability of Section 148 of the Amendment Act to cases filed before the amendment. 4. Interpretation of the term "may" in Section 148 of the Amendment Act. 5. Impact of non-compliance with judicial orders on the judicial process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the appellate court's order to deposit 25% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018: The appellate court directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the compensation amount as a condition for suspending their sentence, as per Section 148 of the Amendment Act. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 'Deswal’s case,' which clarified that the appellate court is justified in imposing such a condition to prevent delay tactics by the accused and ensure the complainant's rights are protected. The court emphasized that the amendment aims to expedite the realization of the cheque amount and maintain the sanctity of cheque transactions. 2. Cancellation of bail due to non-deposit of the ordered compensation amount: The petitioners failed to comply with the appellate court's order to deposit 25% of the compensation amount, leading to the cancellation of their bail. The court noted that the suspension of the sentence was conditional, and non-compliance justified the cancellation of bail. The appellate court's decision to cancel the suspension of the sentence was deemed legal and justified, as the petitioners' conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for judicial orders and an intention to prolong the litigation. 3. Applicability of Section 148 of the Amendment Act to cases filed before the amendment: The petitioners argued that Section 148 of the Amendment Act should not apply to cases filed before the amendment. However, the court held that the amendment applies to all appeals filed after its enactment, regardless of when the original complaint was lodged. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure speedy disposal of cheque dishonor cases and prevent misuse of the appellate process by unscrupulous drawers. 4. Interpretation of the term "may" in Section 148 of the Amendment Act: The petitioners contended that the term "may" in Section 148 implies discretion for the appellate court to impose the deposit condition. The court clarified that while "may" generally indicates discretion, in this context, it should be construed as "shall" to serve the amendment's objective. The appellate court must direct the deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation, with exceptions requiring special reasons. 5. Impact of non-compliance with judicial orders on the judicial process: The court criticized the petitioners for misusing judicial forums and not respecting judicial orders, including those from the Supreme Court. Their non-compliance and avoidance of court proceedings undermined the judicial process and delayed justice. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to judicial orders to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, affirming the appellate court's decision to cancel the suspension of the sentence due to non-deposit of the compensation amount. The judgment reinforced the applicability of Section 148 of the Amendment Act to pending appeals, the mandatory nature of the deposit condition, and the importance of compliance with judicial orders to uphold the rule of law.
|
