9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 836 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - time limit for payment of fine or compensation awarded - power of High Court to extend the time under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. This amount shall be deposited within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court held in Suridner Singh Deshwal vs Virender Gandhi another 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT , that Section 148 of the N.I.Act was introduced to avoid the delaying tactics of the drawers due to easy filing of an appeal and obtaining the stay of the proceedings. This was frustrating the very purpose of enactment of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; therefore, the Parliament decided to provide that 20% amount shall be deposited by the appellant. In the present case, the words of the statutes are clear that the amounts shall be deposited within 60 days or within such further time not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown. These words are capable of only one interpretation that an initial time of 60 days can be granted which can be extended by 30 days on sufficient cause being shown. There is no ambiguity in the words of the statute, hence, the plain words are to be given effect - In the present case, the mischief was delay by the drawer in the payment of the compensation by filing an appeal; hence the interpretation to avoid the delay has to be preferred. By considering the provision as mandatory the mischief would be avoided whereas by considering the provision as directory the mischief will be perpetuated and the purpose of enacting the provision would be defeated. It was submitted that provision of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881 binds the Appellate Court and not this Court. This Court has inherent power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to pass any order to do substantial justice. This submission cannot be accepted. Substantial justice has to be rendered to both the parties, namely, the complainant and the accused. The Court cannot do justice to the accused and injustice to the complainant. When the legislature has enacted a provision to ensure that the complainant should promptly get at least some of the amount, the Court cannot circumvent the intention of the legislature by holding that the time can be extended by the High Court. Thus it is not permissible to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to defeat the provisions of the law and extend the time beyond the period of 90 days. Doing so will amount to encroachment in the field of the legislation, which is impermissible - the submission that the power can be exercised to extend the time beyond that prescribed by the legislature is not acceptable. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court had rightly held that it had no power to extend the time beyond 90 days and this Court does not have the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to extend the time granted by the legislature under Section 148(2) of N.I.Act - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for compliance under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the mandatory nature of the time limit. 3. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to extend time beyond statutory limits. Summary: Issue 1: Extension of time for compliance under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The petitioner sought an extension of time to comply with an order to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as mandated by Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original application for extension was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, leading to the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that genuine grounds prevented compliance and that the High Court has the power to extend the time under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the mandatory nature of the time limit The court examined Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which mandates that the appellant deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation within 60 days, extendable by 30 days on showing sufficient cause. The Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deshwal vs. Virender Gandhi highlighted that this provision was introduced to prevent delaying tactics by drawers of dishonored cheques. The court emphasized that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, allowing only a maximum extension of 30 days beyond the initial 60 days. Issue 3: Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to extend time beyond statutory limits The petitioner relied on judgments suggesting that the High Court has the power to extend time under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the court held that inherent powers cannot be used to override statutory provisions. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, the court stated that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to defeat the express letter of the law. The court concluded that extending time beyond the statutory limit of 90 days would amount to judicial overreach and encroachment into legislative territory. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court rightly concluded it had no power to extend the time beyond 90 days and that the High Court cannot use its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to extend the time prescribed by Section 148(2) of the N.I. Act.
|
