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

2024 Supreme(AP) 1585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B V L N Chakravarthi, J.
Tirumala Naga Venkata Satyanarayana – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 6085 of 2024
Decided On : 04-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mallavelli Naga Sai Lalith Kumar
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

The Appellate Court must consider exceptional circumstances when imposing a deposit requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring specific reasons for its decision.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 148 - Criminal petition for quash of order directing deposit of 20% of compensation amount pending appeal against conviction; Appellate Court must consider if exceptional circumstances exist for waiving deposit requirement. (Paras 3, 6-9)

(B) The Supreme Court emphasized that a purposive interpretation of Section 148 supports the imposition of a deposit condition unless exceptional circumstances are justified, requiring specific reasons for such decisions. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to quash an order directing them to deposit 20% of the compensation amount pending an appeal against conviction under Section 138. The Sessions Judge imposed this condition under CRPC Section 389(1) while suspending the sentence.

Findings of Court:
The order was set aside due to the Appellate Court not addressing whether exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the deposit requirement.

Issues: The central issue is whether the Appellate Court justifiably imposed a deposit condition without considering exceptional circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellate Court must evaluate if there are exceptional reasons to dispense with the deposit of 20% of the compensation, with such reasons needing to be recorded.

Result: The impugned order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under section 482 for quashing order. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding the imposition of deposit condition. (Para 3 , 4)
3. interpretation of section 148 of ni act regarding deposits. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9)
4. court's conclusion on exceptional cases in deposit necessity. (Para 8)
5. final order for reconsideration of deposit condition. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quash of the order dated 27.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.51 of 2024 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Tanuku.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Sessions Judge in the appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.195 of 2024 in CRLA No.321 of 2021 under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount ordered by the learned Trial Judge within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the order, while suspending the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Magistrate. He would submit that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd’s case.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice for the State and would submit that the Appellate Court has power to order the appellant to deposit such sum, which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount awarded by the trial Court in an appeal against the conviction U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act is as under:

S. 148

Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under section 138, the Appellate Court may order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court:

Provided that the amount payable under this sub-section shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by the appellant under section 143A.

2. The amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deposited 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 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.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S.Deswal and others , 2019 (11) SCC 341 , on section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act held as under:

“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 has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be c

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