Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1424 - HC - Indian LawsIssues involved: Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, challenge to judgments of conviction and sentence, suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., reason for directing deposit of 20% of fine, interpretation of Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine in three cases. The petitioner challenged these convictions before the District and Sessions Court, along with applications under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence. The Sessions Court suspended the sentence but directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount without providing sufficient reasons for this decision. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court's order lacked reasoning and did not consider if the case fell within an exception. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the Appellate Court has discretion in imposing deposit conditions under Section 148 of the Act. The legal counsel for the petitioner cited cases to emphasize that the Appellate Court must provide reasons for directing the appellant to deposit a portion of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. The Division Bench's interpretation highlighted that if the Appellate Court requires the appellant to deposit an amount pending appeal, it should not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. Moreover, if the Appellate Court orders a deposit exceeding 20%, it must provide additional reasons for such a decision. The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge did not provide sufficient reasoning for ordering a 20% deposit and did not assess if the case qualified as an exception. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation imposed by the Trial Court, as it lacked adequate reasoning and consideration of exceptions. The Sessions Court was instructed to review the applications afresh, granting both parties an opportunity to be heard within one month from the date of receiving the judgment.
|