9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1424 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Challenged the judgments of conviction u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Suspension of sentence u/s 389 CrPC, reason for directing deposit of 20% of fine - HELD THAT - In the impugned order, the Sessions Judge did not assign sufficient reason while ordering a deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the Trial Court. The Sessions Court has also not considered whether the case of the petitioner fell in the exception or not. Therefore, the orders impugned to the extent it directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation imposed by the trial court stand set aside. The Sessions Court is directed to reconsider the applications afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Issues:
1. Challenge of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and requirement of depositing 20% of the fine amount. 3. Lack of reasoning by the Sessions Court in directing the deposit of 20% of the fine amount. 4. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to suspension of sentence and deposit requirements. 5. Review and setting aside of the Sessions Court's order directing the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine in three cases, challenged the judgments of conviction and sentence before the District and Sessions Court. The petitioner also filed applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C seeking suspension of the sentence. 2. The Sessions Court suspended the sentence on the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the fine amount imposed by the trial court. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Sessions Court did not provide reasons for this directive and passed a blanket order without considering if the case fell under an exception. 3. The counsel for the petitioner cited relevant cases to support the argument that the Appellate Court has discretion in imposing deposit conditions under Section 148 of the N.I. Act. The Supreme Court's observation highlighted the need for the Appellate Court to consider if it is an exceptional case warranting suspension without the deposit requirement, with reasons recorded for such decisions. 4. A Division Bench's interpretation of Section 148 of the N.I. Act emphasized that the Appellate Court must provide clear reasons for its decision on deposit requirements, ensuring compliance with the statutory provision. The Court outlined that the deposit amount should not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court unless further reasons are provided for directing a higher deposit. 5. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount without sufficient reasoning. The Sessions Court was instructed to reconsider the applications after hearing both sides within a month, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision on the deposit requirement based on the exceptions outlined in the relevant legal provisions.
|
