9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 991 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Requirement to deposit of the amount as provided under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the trial Court has Awarded fine of ₹ 1,80,00,000/- along with simple imprisonment for two years and at the same time, has Awarded compensation of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- by invoking Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code - The language of Section 138 of the Act provides for the punishment with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine, which may extend to twice the amount of the Cheque or with both. Therefore, the word used in Section 138 is fine and therefore, discretion is available to the Court under Section 148 to impose condition for preferring an Appeal to deposit minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation Awarded by the trial Court. The Court is of the opinion that in a given facts of the case, where accused person is facing convictions in 9 complaints and in each of these complaints, accused has faced conviction, wherein fine is separately imposed and compensation is also separately imposed, therefore, considering the financial crunch that the accused will have to face in this trying time, the Court deems it fit to directed the accused to deposit 20% of compensation instead directing to deposit 20% of the fine imposed. The Court has also taken into consideration the submission made on behalf of the accused regarding financial inability to arrange for such huge deposits in these Appeals. Considering the overall fact situation, where the accused person is ordered to pay fine of ₹ 1,80,00,000/- in one of the 9 complaints and similar amount ordered to be paid as fine over and above this, an amount of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- Awarded as compensation under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code and what has been brought on the record of this case regarding decree issued by the Commercial Court in Commercial Civil Suit No. 43 of 2919 dated 09.12.2020 holding the plaintiff Company to entitle to recover ₹ 4,50,25,000/- with accrued rate of interest at the rate of 6% from 26.10.2012 till realization of the full amount, in the facts of this case, the Court does not deem it fit to enhance the amount of deposit to more than 20% of the compensation Awarded and hence, no interference on that count. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of conditions by the Appellate Court while enlarging the convict on bail under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Financial difficulties faced by the accused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Interpretation and application of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Conditions by the Appellate Court: The applications were filed against the orders of the Appellate Court regarding the imposition of conditions while granting bail to the convict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original accused sought deletion of conditions Nos. 3 and 4 imposed by the Appellate Court, which required them to deposit 20% of the disputed cheque amount and pay costs to the complainant. The original complainant sought modification of the order to enhance the amount to be deposited by the accused as a percentage of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. 2. Financial Difficulties Due to COVID-19: The accused argued that the condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount was too harsh, especially considering the financial difficulties faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that it was nearly impossible to arrange such a huge amount, leading to double jeopardy as they were required to pay both a substantial fine and a percentage of the cheque amount. 3. Interpretation and Application of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The court examined the application of Section 148 of the Act, which empowers the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court. The court referred to the amendment introduced by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017, and the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi, which clarified that Section 148 applies retrospectively and mandates a minimum deposit of 20% of the fine or compensation. Decision: The court found that the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vadodara, had erred in directing the accused to deposit 20% of the disputed cheque amount instead of 20% of the compensation awarded by the Trial Court. The court held that the accused should deposit 20% of the compensation amount as per the Trial Court's order. The applications filed by the accused were dismissed, and those filed by the complainant were allowed to the extent of modifying the deposit condition. Additional Orders: The court extended the period for depositing the amount by three months, considering the financial condition and the present situation. Conclusion: The judgment addressed the imposition of bail conditions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, considering the financial difficulties due to the pandemic and the legal interpretation of Section 148. The court modified the Appellate Court's order, directing the accused to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded by the Trial Court, thereby balancing the interests of both parties.
|
