9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce as well as criminal appeal. 2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, to assail the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is that it is an order, where no reasoning has been given by the Lower Appellate Court, while issuing notice in the appeal but to grant bail and suspension of sentence subject to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days from that date and, therefore, the same is liable to the quashed being not tenable in the eyes of law. 3. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported as 2023(4) RCR Criminal 296 referring to the observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Courts to consider the said plea. 9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. 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. 10. In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered as compensation. 5. Even before this Court, no such reason has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing or in the petition so pleaded at all that his case is covered under the ratio of Jamboo Bhandari's case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it abundantly clear that Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but only in a case, if it is satisfied that condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such condition will amount to deprivation of right to appeal of the appellant, an exception can be made with the reason specifically recorded. 6. "In Rajni Dhingra vs. Sanjeev Chugh (CRM-M-28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The amendment in Section 148 of the said Act has been cautiously effected primarily having at the back of mind to expedite the disposal of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and by no stretch of discussion, it could be said that the substantive right of appeal of the accused-appellant has been taken away/or effected. 22. Further the Apex Court in Surender Singh Deswal (supra) has observed that amended Section 148 of NI Act, 1881 has purposively interpreted in such a manner it is done so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases considering the fact that once after easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, injustice creep in to the payee of a dishonore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
