9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1056 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - punishment to accused with jail sentence which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both - HELD THAT - It appears that under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a specific provision that court has empowered to punish the accused with jail sentence which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Surinder Singh Deswal 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT , the first appellate court is conferred with the power to direct the applicant to deposit such amount pending appeal which shall be minimum 20% of fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The impugned order dated 19.1.2023 passed by the first appellate court appears to be just and proper which does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity - this criminal revision petition is accordingly dismissed by affirming the order passed by the first appellate court. The applicant is directed to deposit the said amount before the trial court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of a condition by the appellate court while suspending a jail sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the interpretation of section 148 of the Act in relation to the power of the appellate court to direct the deposit of a sum pending appeal. Imposition of Condition by Appellate Court: The revision petition was filed by the applicant challenging the order of the appellate court which suspended the jail sentence on the condition that the applicant shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month. The applicant argued that this condition was contrary to Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in a relevant case. The court noted that under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court has the power to punish the accused with a jail sentence or a fine. The court referred to the judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal which discussed the interpretation of section 148 of the Act regarding the deposit of a sum pending appeal. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties regarding the interpretation of section 148 of the Act. The court referred to the judgment in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal which emphasized that the appellate court has the power to direct the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The court clarified that the provision in section 148 overrides the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing the appellate court to order the deposit of a sum pending appeal. Based on the interpretation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the court concluded that the impugned order passed by the first appellate court was just and proper, not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. Conclusion: The court dismissed the criminal revision petition, affirming the order of the first appellate court. The applicant was directed to deposit the specified amount before the trial court within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The registry was instructed to send the record of the court below.
|
