9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CA No. 174/2019 titled Puneet Saluja v. SBI Global Factors Ltd., by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that, for the reasons stated therein, the respondent no. 2 shall stand exempted from depositing any amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act'); and 20% of compensation amount, which the respondent no. 2 was directed to pay vide order dated 20.01.2020 of the said Court, shall stand waived. The appeal itself was listed for final arguments on 03.05.2024. 3. The above appeal has been filed by respondent no. 2, challenging the order of conviction dated 17.07.2019 whereby the respondent no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstance to the notice of the learned Sessions Court. 18. It is directed that the learned Sessions Court/Appellate Court shall decide the issue in question within a period of two months from date of receipt of this order, after hearing arguments from both the parties. It is also clarified that the issue shall be decided on its on merits as per law, and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment." 5. The respondent no. 2 then filed a further application under Section 148 of the NI Act, seeking waiver of deposit of the amount of 20% of the compensation amount. The said application has now been allowed by the Impugned Order, observing as under:- "The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also filed her ITR of 2010-11 in which the loss has been shown as Rs 10,66,82,746/- and no income has been shown. No document contrary to the said ITR showing that the appellant has any income has been filed by the respondent despite the fact that ITR is having PAN number of the appellant. In Jamboo Bhandari judgment (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that: '6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 of NI Act. Hence, normally, Appellate court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. however, in a case where the Appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent no. 2 invoked only the provisions of Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 as a ground for seeking waiver of the deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Kannan v. B.C. Santhanam, 1999 CRI.L.J. 2236, he submits that the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 does not in any manner bar the penal action against the accused for the offence already committed under Section 138 of the NI Act. He submits that as far as the additional grounds are concerned, they were only taken in the second application, which is not maintainable in law and was based on grounds and documents, which were not a part of the record of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, by an order dated 20.01.2020, the learned Appellate Court had directed the respondent no. 2 to make deposit of the 20% of the compensation amount. This order had been challenged by the respondent no. 2 by way of a petition before this Court. This Court considering the submissions made before it, had remanded the matter back to the learned Appellate Court for taking a fresh decision and allowed the respondent no. 2 to raise additional grounds in support of her application before the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter, the Respondent no. 2 filed a fresh application only to bring the additional grounds to the notice of the learned Appellate Court, for seeking exemption from making the deposit of the 20% as required under Section 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom making the deposit. This Court is not sitting in Appellate jurisdiction to such order. The power of the learned Appellate Court being discretionary in nature, and such discretion having been exercised on valid and cogent grounds, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 14. I, therefore, find no merits in the present petition. The same is dismissed. 15. It is further made clear that the Impugned Order or the order passed today by this Court, shall in no manner prejudice the adjudication of the appeal filed by respondent no. 2, which would have to be decided by the learned Appellate Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. 16. I have been informed that the learned Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
