2024 (6) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from depositing amount u/s 148 of the NI Act - Waiver of compensation - conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act - imprisonment and compensation u/s 357 (3) of the CrPC - Powers of the Appellate Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 of the CrPC - HELD THAT - In the present case, by an order dated 20.01.2020, the learned Appellate Court had directed the respondent no. 2 to make deposit of the 20% of the compensation amount. This order had been challenged by the respondent no. 2 by way of a petition before this Court. This Court considering the submissions made before it, had remanded the matter back to the learned Appellate Court for taking a fresh decision and allowed the respondent no. 2 to raise additional grounds in support of her application before the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 2 filed a fresh application only to bring the additional grounds to the notice of the learned Appellate Court, for seeking exemption from making the deposit of the 20% as required u/s 148 of the NI Act. Therefore, no fault can be found in the respondent no. 2 filing an additional application and in the learned Appellate Court considering the same while passing the Impugned Order. At the same time, the additional documents and plea that have been taken by the respondent no. 2 will be confined only for the purpose of the said application and shall have no effect or be considered at the time of the adjudication of the appeal that is pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Court. The application filed by respondent no. 2 seeking to place additional documents on record shall be determined by the learned Appellate Court on its own merits without being influenced by the adjudication of the application u/s 148 of the NI Act filed by respondent no. 2 or the present order. In any event, the learned Appellate Court has given cogent reasons in the Impugned Order for granting exemption to the respondent no. 2 from making the deposit. This Court is not sitting in Appellate jurisdiction to such order. The power of the learned Appellate Court being discretionary in nature, and such discretion having been exercised on valid and cogent grounds, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, find no merits in the present petition. The same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a petition filed u/s 482 of the Cr. P.C. challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The issues include exemption from depositing amount u/s 148 of the NI Act, waiver of compensation amount, conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act, imprisonment, and compensation under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P.C.

Exemption from Deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act:
The respondent filed an application seeking waiver of the 20% compensation amount deposit, citing exceptional circumstances such as health issues and insolvency. The High Court allowed the application based on the respondent's medical condition, lack of income, and insurance coverage for the transaction. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. & Ors., emphasizing that exemption can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent deprivation of the right to appeal.

Additional Grounds and Documents:
The respondent's counsel argued that the additional grounds raised in a second application were necessary to be considered by the Appellate Court. The Court clarified that these additional documents and grounds should only be relevant for the waiver application and should not influence the pending appeal's adjudication. The Court upheld the respondent's right to present additional evidence but restricted its impact on the ongoing appeal process.

Judicial Discretion and Interference:
The Court emphasized that the Appellate Court's discretion in granting exemption from deposit was validly exercised based on cogent reasons. It stated that interference under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. was not warranted, as the Appellate Court's decision was discretionary and supported by valid grounds. The Court dismissed the petition, ensuring that the judgment did not prejudice the pending appeal's independent adjudication by the Appellate Court.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the exemption granted to the respondent from depositing the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, considering exceptional circumstances like health issues and insolvency. The Court emphasized the Appellate Court's discretionary power in such matters and dismissed the petition challenging the exemption, ensuring the pending appeal's fair adjudication without prejudice from the exemption decision.