9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SC - Indian LawsRequirement to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation - section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act - whether the first appellate court is justified in directing the appellants original accused who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine imposed by the learned trial Court, pending appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence and while suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended? HELD THAT - Having observed and found that because of the delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings, the object and purpose of the enactment of Section 138 of the N.I. Act was being frustrated, the Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the N.I. Act, by which the first appellate Court, in an appeal challenging the order of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is conferred with the power to direct the convicted accused appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. By the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, it cannot be said that any vested right of appeal of the accused appellant has been taken away and/or affected. Therefore, submission on behalf of the appellants that amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act shall not be made applicable retrospectively and more particularly with respect to cases/complaints filed prior to 1.9.2018 shall not be applicable has no substance and cannot be accepted, as by amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, no substantive right of appeal has been taken away and/or affected. Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No. 20/2018 i.e., prior to 01.09.2018. If such a purposive interpretation is not adopted, in that case, the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act would be frustrated. Therefore, as such, no error has been committed by the learned first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation as imposed by the learned trial Court considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act, as amended. Interpretation of statute - the language used in Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended - case of appellant is that the appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court and the word used is not shall and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court to direct the appellant accused to deposit such sum and the appellate court has construed it as mandatory - HELD THAT - Amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant Accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the AppellantAccused under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the appellant. Therefore, if amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is purposively interpreted in such a manner it would serve the Objects and Reasons of not only amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, but also Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonoured of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions, the Parliament has thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and also Sec 138 of the N.I. Act. Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. - case of appellant is that once the appeal against the order of conviction is preferred, fine is not recoverable pending appeal and therefore such an order of deposit of 25% of the fine ought not to have been passed - HELD THAT - The opening word of amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act is that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure.. - Therefore irrespective of the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., pending appeal before the first appellate court, challenging the order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the appellate court is conferred with the power to direct the appellant to deposit such sum pending appeal which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision application/s, confirming the order passed by the first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation pending appeals - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to criminal proceedings initiated prior to the amendment. 2. Interpretation of the word "may" in Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended. 3. Impact of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the deposit of fine/compensation pending appeal. 4. Request for additional time to deposit the amount as per the appellate court's order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The appellants argued that Section 148 of the N.I. Act, as amended by Act No. 20/2018, should not apply to criminal proceedings initiated before the amendment. However, the Court noted that the amendment came into force on 1.9.2018, and the appeals against the conviction were filed after this date. The Court emphasized that the amendment was procedural and did not affect any vested rights of the appellants. Therefore, the amended Section 148 was applicable even to cases initiated before the amendment. The Court concluded that the first appellate court's directive to deposit 25% of the compensation/fine was in line with the amended Section 148 and its objectives. 2. Interpretation of the Word "May" in Section 148 of the N.I. Act as Amended: The appellants contended that the word "may" in Section 148 indicated discretion and should not be construed as mandatory. The Court, however, interpreted "may" as generally implying "shall," with the appellate court having the discretion to decide otherwise only in exceptional cases with special reasons. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent delay tactics by unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques and to uphold the sanctity of cheque transactions. The Court held that the appellate court's order to deposit 25% of the fine/compensation was appropriate under the amended Section 148. 3. Impact of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the Deposit of Fine/Compensation Pending Appeal: The appellants argued that under Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C., fine is not recoverable during the pendency of an appeal. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act explicitly states "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure." Therefore, the appellate court has the authority to direct the deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation pending appeal, irrespective of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Request for Additional Time to Deposit the Amount: The appellants requested an extension of three months to deposit the amount as directed by the first appellate court. While the original complainant opposed this request, the Court, considering the appellants' bona fide litigation and the substantial amount involved, granted an additional four weeks from the date of the judgment to deposit the required amount. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and the first appellate court's order directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the fine/compensation pending appeal. The Court provided an additional four weeks for the appellants to comply with the deposit order. The appeals were dismissed with these observations.
|
