2020 (2) TMI 1637 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation for deposit of the amount - Is it legal and proper to order that deposit of amount under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be made within a period of less than sixty days? - HELD THAT - Section 148(1) of the Act empowers the court in which the accused has filed an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Act to direct him to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the amount of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. Section 148(2) of the Act provides that the amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant - Issuing a direction under Section 148(1) of the Act to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine amount or compensation amount is mandatory. Such an order can be passed by the appellate court on an application filed by the original complainant or on the application filed by the appellant/accused under Section 389 Cr.P.C to suspend the sentence. Exercise of the power under Section 148(1) of the Act by the appellate court is the rule. Non-exercise of the power under Section 148(1) of the Act can only be under very exceptional circumstances. The petitioner was liable to deposit the amount only on or before the date 22.02.2020. The period provided under the statute is now over. As per Section 148(2) of the Act the petitioner is entitled to seek a further period of thirty days for depositing the amount on showing sufficient cause. In the instant case as per Annexure-III order the appellate court has already exercised the power under Section 148(2) of the Act to grant extension of time for a further period of thirty days - it is only proper to grant the petitioner a further period of thirty days from 22.02.2020 for complying with the direction contained in Annexure-II order for depositing the amount. There is no sufficient ground for granting a further period of three months to the petitioner for depositing the amount. The petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is granted a period of thirty days from the date 22.02.2020 for depositing the amount in compliance with Annexure-II order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of ordering deposit under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act within less than sixty days.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the legality of ordering the deposit of a sum under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act within a period of less than sixty days. The petitioner, who was the accused in a case before the trial court, was found guilty under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment along with a compensation amount. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Sessions Court, which admitted the appeal. Subsequently, the appellate court suspended the sentence against the petitioner on certain conditions, including the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 15 days. The petitioner then sought an extension for depositing the amount, which was granted for an additional month. The petitioner further filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C requesting a three-month extension to comply with the deposit directive.

The court examined Section 148(1) and (2) of the Act, which empower the court to direct the accused to deposit a minimum sum, usually 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, within sixty days from the date of the order. The court highlighted that issuing such a direction is mandatory and can be done by the appellate court upon application by the complainant or the appellant. The judgment cited case law to emphasize the importance of exercising this power under Section 148(1) as a rule, with exceptions only in rare circumstances. The court also referenced a recent Supreme Court decision for further clarification on this matter.

Regarding the specific case at hand, the court found that the appellate court had only granted the petitioner fifteen days to deposit the amount, which was in violation of the statutory sixty-day period provided under the Act. The court emphasized that the appellate court does not have the discretion to reduce this period and must adhere to the statutory timeline. As the petitioner had already received a thirty-day extension per Annexure-III order, the court deemed it appropriate to grant an additional thirty days from the original deadline for compliance. Thus, the court partially allowed the petition, granting the petitioner a total of thirty days from a specified date to deposit the amount in accordance with the appellate court's order.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the statutory requirements and timelines for depositing sums under Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such directives and the limited discretion of the appellate court in altering the prescribed timeline for compliance.