2023 (9) TMI 560 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - grant of relief subject to condition of appellants depositing 20% of the amount of compensation - HELD THAT - When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception - The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court. The impugned orders of the High Court set aside - the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the condition of deposit for granting relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment Summary:

Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and were directed to pay a certain amount. The Sessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. subject to the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount. The High Court confirmed this order based on the interpretation of Section 148 as discussed in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi1. The Supreme Court emphasized a purposive interpretation of Section 148, stating that while the usual practice is to impose the deposit condition, exceptions can be made if it would be unjust or deprive the appellant of the right to appeal. The Appellate Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence without the deposit condition in exceptional cases, with reasons recorded.

Court's Ruling and Directions:
The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court erred in treating the 20% deposit as an absolute rule without considering exceptions. The appellants had already deposited the required amount, but the High Court needed to verify this. The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the revision petitions were restored. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings. The interim order for suspension of sentence would continue until the revised petitions were disposed of. The appeals were allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.