9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below directing the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount is found to be erroneous and liable to be setaside, particularly when the petitioner/accused has been directed by the trial court to pay only a fine of ₹ 10,000/- alone and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The impugned order is set aside - Petition disposed off. - Crl.O.P.No.29550 of 2019 Crl.M.P.No.15944 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2020 - THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For the Respondent : Mr.T.Sundaravadhanam ORDER The Criminal Original Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, failing which, directed that the Appeal shall stand dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Original Petition has been laid. 7. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that as per section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which came into force on 01.09.2018, by virtue of the Amendment Act 20 of 2018, the appellate court is competent to direct the petitioner only to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and in such view of the matter, according to him, the Court below has erred in directing the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in the application preferred by the respondent/complainant under section 148 of the Negotiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the complainant. 9. On a reading of section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is evident that pending appeal, the appellate court is competent to direct the appellant/accused to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below directing the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount is found to be erroneous and liable to be setaside, particularly when the petitioner/accused has been directed by the trial court to pay only a fine of ₹ 10,000/- alone and also to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 10. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
