2022 (2) TMI 784 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking release of 30% of the cheque amount in favour of the applicant pending the captioned revision application - demand of money for maintenace of livelihoods as no other source of income exists - HELD THAT - According to this Court, there is no suppression made by the present applicant in praying for withdrawal of the amount of 30% deposited by the respondent no. 2 herein. It appears from Annexure-A2 ion for fixing date of early hearing was not pressed by the present applicant and sought permission to withdraw the same and according, the permission as sought for was granted by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2019. Withdrawal of the application for fixing early date of hearing of Criminal Revision Application preferred by the respondent no. 2 herein would not debar him to prefer this application for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the respondent no. 2 herein - Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act also permit the complainant to withdraw such amount deposited by the accused persons during the pendency of the appeal. Indisputably, the jurisdiction of this court cannot be debarred or interpreted in a narrow manner as submitted by learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 herein. This Court, being revisional jurisdiction certainly allow the original complainant/present applicant to permit her to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent no. 2 herein as envisaged under Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act - the applicant is hereby permitted to withdraw 30% amount deposited by the respondent no. 2 herein before the trial court - application allowed.

Issues:
1. Application for release of 30% cheque amount pending revision application.
2. Maintainability of the application based on previous withdrawal application.
3. Interpretation of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to allow withdrawal of deposited amount.

Issue 1: Application for release of 30% cheque amount pending revision application:
The applicant sought the release of 30% of the cheque amount pending a revision application. The applicant, a divorcee with a son residing abroad, claimed financial constraints and the need for the money to sustain livelihood. The respondent no. 2 objected, citing a previous withdrawal application by the applicant. The respondent no. 2 had deposited the required amount as per court orders. The court considered the grounds for withdrawal provided by the applicant and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the application based on previous withdrawal application:
The respondent no. 2 argued that the applicant had previously withdrawn an application unconditionally and without court permission, making the current application not maintainable. However, the court found no suppression by the applicant regarding the withdrawal of the amount. The court referred to previous orders allowing withdrawal of certain applications and stated that withdrawal of a previous application did not debar the applicant from seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court analyzed Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which empowers the appellate court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum sum pending appeal against conviction under section 138. The court emphasized the provision's applicability during the pendency of the appeal and the authority to release the deposited amount to the complainant. The court highlighted that the revisional jurisdiction could allow withdrawal of the deposited amount as per the Act.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the court to allow withdrawal of deposited amount:
The court, considering the provisions of Section 148(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, permitted the applicant to withdraw the 30% amount deposited by the respondent no. 2. The court clarified that the complainant would need to repay the amount if the respondent no. 2 was acquitted. The court asserted its revisional jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the deposited amount, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application, permitting the applicant to withdraw the specified amount deposited by the respondent no. 2. The court emphasized the legal provisions, jurisdiction, and the applicant's circumstances in reaching its decision.

← Previous Next →