2023 (12) TMI 1323 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - non-speaking order - requirement of speaking order to impose a condition to deposit the amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - In JJAMBOO BHANDARI VERSUS M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 2023 (9) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court considered the powers of the appellate court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and held that ' When an accused applies under S.389 of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.' In the light of the above principle laid by the Apex Court, it is the duty of the Appellate court to give reason for imposing the condition to deposit 20% of compensation for suspending the sentence. There cannot be any blanket order to deposit 20% of the compensation for suspending the sentence in all cases. When a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls within the exception or not. The appellate court while suspending a sentence cannot pass a blanket order in all cases to deposit 20% of the fine or compensation without assigning any reason. Moreover, once the court has decided to order deposit as per Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount of deposit ordered by the Court can be varied from the minimum 20% of the fine or compensation to a higher percent of the fine or compensation. That also shows that a speaking order is necessary. Even if the court is imposing 20% of the fine or compensation as a condition for suspending the sentence, in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), a reason is necessary. Thus, the Sessions court has not applied its mind before imposing 20% of the compensation amount. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case, the above order is unsustainable. Moreover, there is no order requiring the appellant to execute a bond for suspending the sentence. This court called for the remarks of the appellate court for not directing the appellant to execute bond. The direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the trial court as per order dated 24.06.2023 in CMP No. 44/2023 in Crl.Appeal No. 109/2023 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Pala is set aside - criminal case allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Appeal against conviction and sentence; Imposition of condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount pending appeal.

Conviction and Sentence: The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II. The sentence included simple imprisonment and a compensation amount to be paid to the complainant, with a default provision for further imprisonment. The petitioner appealed this decision before the Sessions court, which suspended the sentence with a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a specified time frame.

Imposition of Condition to Deposit 20% of Compensation Amount: The petitioner challenged the imposition of the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount pending appeal, citing the decision of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. The petitioner argued that a speaking order is necessary when imposing such a condition, and the order in question was not sufficiently reasoned.

Analysis and Decision: The High Court considered the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding the power of the Appellate Court under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was emphasized that a blanket order to deposit 20% of the compensation in all cases is not appropriate, and a reasoned decision must be provided by the Appellate Court. The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 148, which require the Appellate Court to decide whether to order the deposit and, if so, the minimum percentage to be deposited. In this case, the suspension order lacked proper reasoning and did not address the requirement for the appellant to execute a bond.

Judgment: The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, setting aside the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount and directing the Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter after providing an opportunity for both parties to be heard. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner until fresh orders were passed. The importance of a reasoned decision and compliance with legal procedures, including the execution of a bond, was emphasized in the judgment.