SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 615

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal & Others – Appellants
Versus
Virender Gandhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 917-944 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 4948-4975 of 2019
Decided On : 29-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Aman Nandrajog, Sumeer Sodhi, Siddharth Sharma, Aarzoo Aneja, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Alok Sangwan, Sunny Kadiyan, Manu Rajwanshi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 148 can be applied to complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018.
The word ‘may’ used in section 148, negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be construed as ‘shall’.
Section 357(2), CrPC shall not apply to section 148, N.I. Act.

Headnote:

(a) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 148 - Amendment providing for deposit of minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court for appeal - amendment not taking away vested substantial right of appeal of the accused - Held, such amendment would be retrospective - Section 148 can be applied to complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018 - No error committed by first appellate court. (Para 8)

       AIR 1957 SC 540; (2015) 4 SCC 33 - Distinguished

       CRR No. 9872 of 2018 (P&H); Criminal Writ Petition No. 258 of 2019 (Bom); (2007) 6 SCC 52 - Referred

       (b) Interpretation of statute - Mandatory or directory - ‘May’ and ‘shall’ - To be determined by reading the statute as a whole with the statement of object and reasons - Instantly, held, word ‘may’ used in section 148, negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be construed as ‘shall’. (Para 9)

       (c) Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 357(2) - Non obstante clause in section 148, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 prohibiting application of provisions of the Code, 1973 - Therefore section 357(2) shall not apply in the instant case.(Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       That criminal complaints were filed against the appellants herein - original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The said criminal complaints were filed prior to 2.8.2018.

       The trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of two years and to pay cheque amount + 1% as interest and litigation expenses as fine.

       The first appellate Court, while suspending the sentence and allowing the application/s under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C, directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine awarded by the learned trial Court.

       The High Court dismissed the revision petition theregainst.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 148 can be applied to complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018.

       The word ‘may’ used in section 148, negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be construed as ‘shall’.

       Section 357(2), CrPC shall not apply to section 148, N.I.Act.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Leave granted.

2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and, as such, all these appeals, arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, are being decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has dismissed the respective revision applications and has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, directing the appellants herein - original appellants - original accused to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation, in view of the provisions of amended Act No. 20 of 2018 in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act'), the original appellants -original accused have preferred the present appeals.

4. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

That criminal complaints were filed against the appellants herein - original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. That the said criminal complaints were filed prior to 2.8.2018. That the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of two years and to pay cheque amount + 1% as interest and litigation expenses as fine.

4.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, convicting the appellants - original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the appellants - original accused have preferred criminal appeals before the first appellate Court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. In the said appeals, the appellants - original accused submitted application/s under Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. for suspension of sentence and releasing them on bail, pending appeal/s.

4.2 That considering the provisions of amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act, which has been amended by Amendment Act No. 20/2018, which came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2018, the first appellate Court, while suspending the sentence and allowing the application/s under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C, directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine awarded by the learned trial Court.

4.3 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned first appellate Court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula directing the appellants - original accused - original appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation/fine awarded by the learned trial Court, pending appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by way of revision application/s.

4.4 It was the case on behalf of the appellants that Section 148 of the N.I. Act, as amended by Act No. 20/2018, shall not be applicable with respect to criminal proceedings already initiated prior to the amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act.

4.5 The High Court by a detailed judgment and order has not accepted the aforesaid contention and has dismissed the revision application/s and has confirmed the order passed by the learned first appellate Court - learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula directing the appellants - original appellants-original accused to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial Court considering Section 148 of the N.I. Act, as amended.

4.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in dismissing the revision application/s and confirming the order/s passed by the learned first appellate Court directing the appellants - original appellants - original accused to deposit 25% of the amount of compen




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top