Back
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Jamboo Bhandari – Appellant
Versus
M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Question 1? What is the principle governing suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in cases of conviction under Section 138 NI Act? Question 2? What are the exceptional circumstances under which the deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation can be dispensed with for suspension of sentence? Question 3? What procedures and considerations must the appellate court record when grant of suspension without 20% deposit is deemed an exceptional case?
Key Points: - The appellate court may suspend sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. without depositing 20% of the fine/compensation if it is an exceptional case, with reasoned recording. (!) - Normally, Section 148 NI Act requires a minimum deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation as a condition for suspension pending appeal; exceptions are allowed. (!) - The decision in Surinder Singh Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi discusses the purposive interpretation of Section 148 NI Act and supports exception in suitable cases. (!) - The High Court and Sessions Court failed by treating 20% deposit as an absolute rule; they must consider exceptions and record reasons. (!) - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and restored the revision petitions, directing re-examination with regard to whether 20% has been deposited. (!) - The interim suspension of sentence will continue until disposal of the restored petitions. (!) - The appellants argued that deposit of 20% is unjust or deprives the right of appeal; the Court acknowledged exceptional cases. (!) - The decision clarifies that the discretion to grant suspension without 20% deposit is available in exceptional cases, with reasons required. (!) - The matter involves two appeals arising from Section 138 NI Act conviction and 20% deposit condition under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (!) - The judgment emphasizes speedy disposal and purposive interpretation of amendments to NI Act and Cr.P.C. provisions. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The appellants in these two appeals were the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate who tried them on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”). The learned Magistrate convicted the appellants and directed them to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,52,36,985/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum. An appeal was preferred by the appellants before the Sessions Court. Relying upon Section 148 of the N.I. Act, the Sessions Court granted relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) subject to condition of appellants depositing 20% of the amount of compensation. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the order of the Sessions Court.
4. The High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341. The High Court proceeded on the footing that, as this Court has interpreted the word “may” appearing in Section 148 as “shall”, the relief of suspension of se
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
