9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conviction and sentence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act suspended the jail sentence of applicant on the condition that the applicant shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 1,91,500/- within the period of one month from the date of order passed by the trial court. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that such condition could not have been imposed by appellate court while suspending the jail sentence as the same is contrary to Section 357(2) of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon order of Bombay High court in the case of Ajay Vinodchandra Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019(4) MHLJ 705. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent opposes the prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants would be contrary to the provisions of section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended section 148 of the N.I. Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending section 148 of the N.I. Act, though it is true that in amended section 148 of the N.I. Act, the word used is "may", it is generally to be construed as a "rule" or "shall" and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned. Therefore amended section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant- Accused to deposit the sum which shall not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transactions, the Parliament has thought it fit to section 148 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in section 148 of the N.I. Act and also section 138 of the N.I. Act." 10. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants, relying upon Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C. that once the appeal against the order of conviction is preferred, fine is not recoverable pending appeal and therefore such an order of deposit of 25% of the fine ought not to have been passed and in support of the above reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dilip S. Dhanukar (supra) is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The opening word of am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
