2025 (1) TMI 782 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - whether condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, requiring the applicant to deposit 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, is justified? - HELD THAT - Having gone through the provision of Section 148 of the N.I. Act and after taking into consideration the observations recorded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ANR. 2023 (11) TMI 1338 - SC ORDER , this Court is of the considered view that in normal circumstances, the Appellate Court may be justified in imposing the condition of deposit, as provided in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, and only in those cases, where imposing the condition of deposit is unjust or which may deprive the accused/appellant to pursue his appeal, an exception can be drawn by deviating from the normal procedure. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Case Law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Ashok Kumar is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Conclusion - The Court finds that no special circumstance exists in the present case, and the condition of deposit of 20% compensation will neither be unjust nor it will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal to the applicant. Application dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

Whether the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, requiring the applicant to deposit 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, is justified.
Whether the use of the term "may" in Section 148 of the NI Act implies a discretionary power for the Appellate Court to waive the deposit requirement.
Whether the precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases apply to the present circumstances.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of the Deposit Condition under Section 148 of the NI Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 148 of the NI Act empowers the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court during an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted Section 148 as generally justifying the imposition of the deposit condition, except in cases where such a condition would be unjust or would deprive the appellant of the right to appeal.
Key Evidence and Findings: The applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for issuing a cheque that was dishonored due to the account being closed. The Sessions Judge required a 20% deposit of the compensation amount as a condition for staying the sentence during the appeal.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found no special circumstances in the present case that would render the deposit condition unjust or deprive the applicant of the right to appeal.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant argued that the deposit condition was non-mandatory and relied on a Supreme Court judgment suggesting exceptions could be made. However, the court determined that the cited case law was not applicable to the present facts.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the imposition of the deposit condition was justified and did not interfere with the applicant's right to appeal.

Issue 2: Discretionary Nature of Section 148 of the NI Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The use of the word "may" in Section 148 suggests a degree of discretion for the Appellate Court regarding the deposit requirement.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the discretionary nature of the provision but emphasized that exceptions to the deposit requirement should only be made in cases where it would be unjust or hinder the appellant's right to appeal.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 148, which allows for exceptions in specific circumstances.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found no compelling circumstances in the present case to justify deviating from the standard requirement of a deposit.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment was deemed inapplicable, as the court found no special circumstances warranting a waiver of the deposit.
Conclusions: The court held that the discretionary power under Section 148 did not apply to the applicant's case, affirming the requirement to deposit 20% of the compensation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "In normal circumstances, the Appellate Court may be justified in imposing the condition of deposit, as provided in Section 148 of the N.I. Act, and only in those cases, where imposing the condition of deposit is unjust or which may deprive the accused/appellant to pursue his appeal, an exception can be drawn by deviating from the normal procedure."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the imposition of a deposit condition under Section 148 is generally justified unless it is shown to be unjust or detrimental to the appellant's right to appeal.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the application, upholding the Sessions Judge's order requiring the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, as no special circumstances were found to justify an exception.

← Previous Next →