2020 (8) TMI 214 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - the opposite party no. 2 has pointed out about all the orders by which the revisionist has directed to deposit forty per cent of the fine amount, but still he has not deposited the same - HELD THAT - Perusal of the provisions of Section 148 N.I. Act as well as the fact that the revisionist has approached this Court by means of filing several applications in which also he was given sufficient time to deposit the penalty amount still the same has not been complied by the revisionist. The revisionist is directed to deposit 50 per cent of the fine amount, preferably, within a period of 30 days from today - After the aforesaid amount will be deposited by the revisionist, concerned court below is directed that the appeal may be heard on merits and may be decided, in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order within a further period of two months from the date of first hearing of appeal. Application disposed off.

Issues:
- Quashing of impugned order dated 11.11.2019
- Conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act
- Non-deposition of fine amount in compliance with court orders
- Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Quashing of Impugned Order:
The revisionist filed a petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The revisionist was convicted for dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient balance and was sentenced to imprisonment and fined. Despite appeals and court directions to deposit the fine amount, the revisionist failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court noted the revisionist's repeated non-compliance with court orders to deposit the penalty amount.

Conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act:
The complaint alleged that the revisionist issued a cheque amounting to ?15,00,000, which was dishonored. The trial court convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, imposing imprisonment and a fine. The revisionist's appeals were dismissed due to non-deposition of the directed amount. The court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and highlighted the revisionist's failure to deposit the penalty amount despite multiple opportunities.

Non-Deposition of Fine Amount:
The revisionist repeatedly failed to deposit the required penalty amount as directed by the court, leading to the dismissal of appeals and subsequent orders for depositing the fine. Despite various court orders granting extensions and opportunities to comply, the revisionist did not fulfill the payment obligations. The court noted the revisionist's persistent non-compliance with the orders to deposit the penalty amount, which led to the current criminal revision.

Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court considered Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. In this case, the revisionist failed to comply with the deposit requirements despite multiple court orders and extensions. The court directed the revisionist to deposit fifty percent of the fine amount within 30 days for the appeal to be heard on merits within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders, particularly regarding the deposit of penalty amounts in cases involving dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment underscored the consequences of non-compliance and provided a clear directive for the revisionist to fulfill the payment obligations within a specified timeframe for the appeal to proceed.

← Previous Next →