2022 (1) TMI 1006 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Dishonor of Cheque - seeking extension of time to deposit penalty - HELD THAT - From a perusal of the zimni orders annexed with the present petition, it is apparent that on 06.02.2021, notice was issued to the petitioner for 18.02.2021 and vide order dated 23.09.2021, the petitioner was served but had not appeared and thus, non-bailable warrants were again issued. The Medical Certificate relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is from a private Doctor. At any rate, the petitioner had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and amount of ₹ 50,000/- had been imposed as penalty which keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, is appropriate and in accordance with law. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount of penalty cannot be imposed by the Court. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the penalty imposed during grant of anticipatory bail under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to set aside the penalty of ?50,000 imposed by the Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to the COVID pandemic, the petitioner could not appear in court, and medical records supported this claim. The petitioner moved a petition for anticipatory bail on 26.11.2021. The Sessions Judge granted bail but imposed a penalty of ?50,000 in addition to other conditions. The respondent argued that the petitioner misused the legal process, delayed proceedings, and failed to challenge the penalty order. The respondent highlighted the history of the case, including previous bail cancellations and costs imposed on the petitioner for adjournments and non-appearance.

The Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner 30 days to deposit the penalty amount of ?50,000. The petitioner did not challenge this order. The court found that the penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The case involved a loan default and a dishonored cheque, leading to the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner's history of non-appearance and delays in the proceedings were noted. Various costs were imposed on the petitioner for adjournments and failure to cross-examine witnesses. Despite opportunities granted, the petitioner did not comply, leading to bail cancellations and non-bailable warrants.

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the penalty imposed was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail but failed to challenge the penalty order within the specified time. The court emphasized that the penalty amount of ?50,000 was appropriate considering the petitioner's conduct in the legal proceedings. The medical certificate provided by the petitioner was from a private doctor and did not invalidate the penalty imposed. The court found no reason to overturn the penalty decision, given the petitioner's history of non-compliance and delays in the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning in upholding the penalty, and the history of the case leading to the dismissal of the petition challenging the penalty imposed during the grant of anticipatory bail.