9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1007 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - challenge to deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court - power of the appellate Court to order payment pending the appeal against conviction - HELD THAT - As per Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is within the power of the appellate Court to order payment pending the appeal against conviction and also to order deposit of such sum and deposit a sum which is minimum of 20% of the fine of the compensation awarded by the trial court - reliance also placed in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS VIRENDER GANDHI 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that 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. There are no illegality in the impugned order, as such the petition stands dismissed and all interim orders are vacated.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the deposit of 20% compensation awarded by the Appellate Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the Appellate Court. The convict was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of ?90 lacs, double the cheque amount. An appeal was filed before the Session Judge, Kurukshetra, against the conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge directed the convict to deposit 20% of the compensation within 60 days. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for challenging this order. The Court noted that as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court has the power to order payment pending appeal against conviction and to order a deposit, which should be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Surinder Singh Deswal's case, where it was held that the amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act is applicable even to cases filed before the amendment Act of 2018. The purpose of the amendment was to prevent delay tactics by unscrupulous drawers of dishonored cheques. The amendment empowers the appellate court to direct the appellant-accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The Court emphasized that the word "may" in the amended Section 148 is generally to be construed as "shall" and not directing the deposit by the appellate court is an exception requiring special reasons. The purposive interpretation of the amended Section 148 would serve the objectives of speedy disposal of cases related to dishonored cheques and prevent injustice to the payee. The High Court analyzed the impugned order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Singh Deswal's case. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the petition was dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prevent the accused/convict from availing legal remedies available to him. The Court also noted that the case had been pending since 2016 and observed intentional delays by the accused, requesting the Appellate Court to expedite the matter.
|
