2020 (2) TMI 1717 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - challenge to conviction and sentence imposed - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the petitioner had not mentioned in Ex. P3 application any special reasons for exempting her from making deposit of amount under Section 148(1) of the Act. It was only mentioned in Ex. P3 application that the cause of action for filing the complaint arose prior to the date on which Section 148 of the Act came into force. This contention did not merit consideration by the appellate court because it has been categorically held in Surinder Singh Deswal 2020 (1) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT that Section 148 of the Act has got retrospective operation. The position of law with regard to retrospective operation of the provision contained Section 148 of the Act has been re-iterated by the Apex Court in a very recent decision in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi. The Apex Court has also held in this decision that, when suspension of sentence is ordered by the appellate court on the condition that deposit under Section 148 shall be made by the appellant and when the direction in that regard is not complied with by the appellant, the appellate court can hold that suspension of sentence stands vacated. In the instant case, the appellate court has directed the petitioner to deposit only the minimum amount, that is, 20% of the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court. There are no illegality or impropriety in Ext. P4 order passed by the appellate court. The petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and propriety of Ext. P4 order passed by the Court of Session, Thalassery u/s Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court of Session, Thalassery admitted the appeal and allowed the petitioner's application for suspension of the sentence on depositing 20% of the compensation ordered by the trial court and executing a bond. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that special reasons were not considered for not directing her to deposit 20% of the compensation.

The court examined Section 148(1) of the Act, which empowers the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The court clarified that the appellate court is generally required to direct the deposit of 20% of the compensation, and special reasons need to be provided for not doing so. The petitioner's counsel cited a Supreme Court case indicating that special reasons could exempt the appellant from depositing the amount.

However, the court emphasized that it is the appellant's responsibility to point out special reasons for not depositing the amount under Section 148(1) of the Act. In this case, the petitioner did not mention any special reasons in the application for suspension of the sentence. The court noted that the provision of Section 148 has retrospective operation, as confirmed by recent Supreme Court decisions.

Ultimately, the court found no illegality in the Ext. P4 order, which directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation. The court dismissed the petition but extended the time for depositing the amount.