9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1429 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the revision - dishonour of cheque - legally enforceable cheque or not - tripartite agreement executed towards settlement of all dues during pendency of the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - It is apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan 2022 (7) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it has been held Applying the test as to whether non-passing of such order or accepting of any plea by the accused or the complainant whether it would result in culmination of proceedings the answer is again in the negative - thus the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. Thus in the case of Surinder Singh Deshwal 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT Hon ble the Apex Court has held that use of word may in Section 148 of the NI Act has to be read as shall and appellate Court must orinarily order depositing of minimum 20% of compensation or fine amount imposed by the trial Court. The impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality irregularity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence the revision being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of the order imposing payment as a condition for suspension of sentence. 2. Interpretation of the tripartite agreement in relation to the liability under the dishonored cheque. 3. Maintainability of the revision against the interlocutory order. 4. Applicability of the direction for depositing 20% of the amount as a condition precedent. Analysis: 1. The applicant challenged the validity of the order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the 25th Sessions Judge, Bhopal, which imposed the payment of 20% of the amount (Rs. 50,47,397/-) as a condition for the suspension of sentence. The senior counsel for the applicants argued that the liability under the cheque would not be enforceable due to a tripartite agreement executed during the pendency of the complaint case. The counsel cited various Supreme Court decisions to support this argument. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the lower appellate Court rightly directed the deposit of 20% of the amount, emphasizing the use of the word "shall" in Section 148 of the NI Act. The Court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality in the lower appellate Court's order. 2. The facts revealed that a complaint was filed for dishonor of a cheque against the applicant by the MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. A tripartite agreement was then made between the MPSIDC, M/s. Alpine Industries Ltd., and M/s. NPA, where M/s. NPA was solely responsible for paying the dues. M/s. NPA had already paid a significant amount to the MPSIDC. The senior counsel argued that the liability under the cheque was settled through this agreement, making it unenforceable. However, the Court did not find this argument compelling and upheld the lower appellate Court's decision. 3. The Court addressed the issue of maintainability of the revision against the interlocutory order. Citing Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court referred to a relevant judgment where it was held that orders passed under Section 148 of the NI Act were interlocutory in nature and not subject to revision. The Court further emphasized that orders related to the grant of suspension of sentence or bail were interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397 of the CrPC. Therefore, the Court concluded that the revision against the interlocutory order was not maintainable. 4. Regarding the direction to deposit 20% of the amount as a condition precedent, the Court referred to the decision in the case of Surinder Singh Deshwal, where the Supreme Court held that the appellate Court must ordinarily order the depositing of a minimum of 20% of the compensation or fine amount imposed by the trial Court. Analyzing the situation from this perspective, the Court found no illegality in the lower appellate Court's order and dismissed the revision for lacking merit.
|
