9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 172 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - suspension of sentence and criminal appeal - Validity of imposing a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount - Violation of principles of natural justice - order, where no reasoning has been given by the Lower Appellate Court, while issuing notice in the appeal but to grant bail and suspension of sentence subject to deposit compensation - HELD THAT - This Court after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the rationality of the order passed by the Lower Appellant Court in not giving any reason for deposit of 20 % of compensation amount, is of the view that no doubt that it is a statutory liability under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is enforceable by the Lower Appellate Court and has been very justifiably so ordered, therefore, this Court does not press for further reasoning to be mentioned in the order as to why 20 % compensation amount is to be deposited, rather the onus would be upon the petitioner-appellant to make out a case of an exception, if at all to show his inability to deposit the 20 % of compensation amount that too once he has been proved guilty and convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby cheque amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- issued by him was dishonoured, which has been ordered as compensation. Even before this Court, no such reason has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing or in the petition so pleaded at all that his case is covered under the ratio of JAMBOO BHANDARI VERSUS M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 2023 (9) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it abundantly clear that Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but only in a case, if it is satisfied that condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such condition will amount to deprivation of right to appeal of the appellant, an exception can be made with the reason specifically recorded. This Court considered the question of validity for imposing the restriction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a pre-requisite for suspending the sentenced on the touchstone of the decision in SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS VIRENDER GANDHI 2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Apex Court, after having considered the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act and the objects and reasons for its enactment by way of Amendment No.20/2018, held that the power of the Appellate Court in directing the accused to deposit more than 20% of the fine is mandatory in nature and as such upheld such stipulation for suspension of sentence. The reasoning given by the Lower Appellate Court would only be a case, where the Court has to grant an exception from deposit of such 20 % compensation amount, which is a prerequisite for entering into an appeal under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act of the amount awarded by the trial Court under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., and not to record reasons, wherein it is an obligation as per the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act itself and hence such an argument does not hold good and is not acceptable. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount while deciding the application for suspension of sentence and criminal appeal. Summary: Issue 1: Lack of reasoning in the Lower Appellate Court's order The petitioner challenged the Lower Appellate Court's order, arguing that it lacked reasoning for imposing the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that while the Appellate Court can impose such a condition, exceptions can be made if it would deprive the appellant of the right to appeal. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the parties to appear before the High Court for further proceedings. Issue 2: Statutory liability under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act The Court noted that the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is a statutory liability enforceable by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner was required to show exceptional circumstances to be exempt from this deposit, especially after being convicted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory provisions and rejected the petitioner's argument for exemption. Issue 3: Validity of imposing the 20% deposit condition Referring to a previous case, the Court discussed the validity of imposing the 20% deposit condition for suspending the sentence. It highlighted the need to expedite proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and upheld the mandatory nature of the Appellate Court's power to direct such deposits. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the accused to deposit the amount ordered by the Lower Appellate Court within the stipulated time, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the statutory provisions. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition for lacking merits and upheld the statutory requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the Lower Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
