9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court and thereby has rejected the stay application (Paper No. 5-B) as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the present opp. party no. 2 filed a complaint U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 406/420 I.P.C against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist Faizabad on 25.02.2014 with allegations that complainant was a company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956, which was carrying out the business of manufacturing and sales of Poultry Feed through their unit situated at Plot No. B-1 to B-6 Industrial Area Site No.-1 Post-Haripur Jalalabad, Lucknow Road, P.S-Cantt Distt.-Faizabad (Now Ayodhya). It was further alleged that the present petitioner Mangal Prasad Singh purchased the Poultry Feed with the complainant company as per terms settled between the parties and handed over a cheque bearing number "394990" dated 15.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 300000/- drawn on State Bank of India Babatpur, Varanasi but when the same was presented for clearing by the complainant company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of fine of Rs. 10000/- shall be deposited in Court and in case of non deposition of amount of fine the accused shall serve one month further imprisonment. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court remedy of filing Statutory Appeal is provided to the accused person U/S 374 Cr.P.C and as such the petitioner/accused preferred Statutory Appeal on 29.02.2024 in the Court of District & Sessions Judge Faizabad. It is further stated that along with the Memo of Appeal the petitioner/appellant moved two applications one for granting bail to the appellant/accused during pendency of the appeal and other for staying the operation of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Section 148(1) of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which has been inserted in the Act through Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No 20 of 2018) it has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction U/S 138, the Appellate Court may ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lum continuously taking place during pendency of the appeal. He further submitted that by non staying the operation of the impugned order by the Appellate Court, serious far reaching Civil Consequences may arise and the same may be detrimental to the interest of the appellant/petitioner, for which there is no justification. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 to the extent by which the Appellate Court has declined to grant stay order has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and as such the necessity of filing the present petition invoking the Supervisory Jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India has arisen, thus, he submitted that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the operation of the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the recovery of fine to the tune of Rs. 400000/- as imposed by the Trial Court may kindly be stayed during pendency of the present petition in the Hon'ble Court, otherwise the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss. 14. Learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 did not oppose the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cause being shown by the appellant. (3)The Appellate Court may direct the release of the amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at any time during the pendency of the appeal: Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant." 17. As per Section 148(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which has been inserted in the Act through Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.20 of 2018) it has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal by the drawer against conviction U/S 138, the Appellate Court may order the Appellant to deposit such sum which may shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the Trial Court, provided that the amount payable under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court of India in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others vs. Virender Gandhi reported in (2019) SCC 341 wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to observe in paragraph No.8, which is reproduced hereinunder:- "8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that even considering the language used in Section 148 of the NI Act as amended, the appellate court "may" order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and the word used is not "shall" and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court to direct the appellant-accused to deposit such sum and the appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended Section 148 of the NI Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Section 148 of the NI Act, though it is true that in the amended Section 148 of the NI Act, the word used is "may", it is generally to be construed as a "rule" or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 9-10-2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court, after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the revision petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored revision petitions, the interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate." 23. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances, as narrated above and from the perusal of the record, the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024; Mangla Prasad Singh vs. Shanti Roller Mills Ltd to the extent by which the learned Appellate Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
