IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Shivam Associates Thro Suthar (Mevada) Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 3892 of 2023
Decided on : 08-01-2024
N.I. Act - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 482 - 138 NI Act, 357(3) CrPC, 389 CrPC - 20% deposit not mandatory - Appeal dismissed for default - Restoration of appeal - Opportunity of hearing to the accused - Quashing and setting aside of orders - Release of accused - Disposal of appeal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/s were convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and filed a Criminal Appeal. The appeal was dismissed for default as the accused remained absconding. The petitioner sought to quash the dismissal and restore the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appeal was disposed of without considering the merits and in the absence of the accused. It noted that the 20% deposit required under Section 389 of CrPC is not mandatory. The Court emphasized the right of the accused to defend himself and the need for substantial compliance.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the appeal for default, the requirement of 20% deposit, and the right of the accused to a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appeal should not be dismissed for default without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. It emphasized the need for substantial compliance and the right of the accused to defend himself.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the dismissal orders, and restored the appeal. It directed the release of the accused and instructed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the appeal within two months, with the option to proceed in the absence of the accused if they fail to cooperate.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rakesh R. Patel for the petitioner/s, learned APP Mr.K.M. Antani for the respondent –State and learned advocate Mr.Amit R. Joshi for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State and learned advocate Mr.Amit R. Joshi waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.2.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, at the joint request of the learned advocates, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
4. By way of the present petition, the petitioner/s are seeking following reliefs :
“A. That this Hon’ble court be pleased to pass appropriate writ or order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 7/12/2022 below Ex-19 (Annexure-H)as well as order dated 4/3/2023 below exhibit-22 in Criminal Appeal no. 26 of 2022 (Annexure- L) passed by the learned sessions court Patan, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and thereby may be pleased to issue appropriate direction is to be issued to restore the Criminal appeal no. 26 of 2022
B. That this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the learned Appellate court to restore the Criminal Appeal no. 26/2022 and hear and decide the same on merits and further be pleased to direct the appellate court to restore the order dated 09/06/2022 d below Exhibit-4 by the learned additional sessions Judge Patan
C That the pending, final hearing of the Special Criminal Application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 7/12/2022 below Exhibit 19 (Annexure- H)as well as order dated 4/3/2023 below exhibit -22 in Criminal Appeal no. 26 of 2022 (Annexure-L) passed by the learned sessions court, Patan and further order to restore the order dated 9/6/2022 passed below Exhibit- 4 and direct the learned Appellate court to here and decide the Criminal appeal on merit.
D. That this Honourable Court be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may demand against the respondents herein.”
5. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition is as under :
5.1. The petitioner/s are convicted by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Patan vide order dated 15.04.2022 in Criminal Case No.2353 of 2016. Accused-petitioner No.2 held guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and whereby, petitioner No.2 convicted for simple imprisonment of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.2500/- and in default, further, he has to undergo 10 days simple imprisonment and in addition to alongwith 5% interest of the cheque amount Rs.15 lacs is to be paid by the accused towards the compensation to complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of 60 days and in case of default, further, accused shall have to undergo 30 days simple imprisonment.
5.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner No.2 had preferred Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan along with the delay application. Accordingly, delay was condoned and appeal came to be registered and passed order below application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, filed below Exh.4. On 9th June, 2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan has been pleased to suspend the order of the sentence, subject to deposit 20% amount of the cheque i.e. Rs.3 lacs, on the bail bond of Rs.15,000/-, he was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 5.3. As petitioner/s was unable to make the arrangement of the 20% amount, he has submitted the application below Exh.10 on 10th June, 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge to reduce amount up to 10 % i.e. Rs.1.50 lacs. The said application came up and pursuant to the said application, the amount was reduced to Rs. 1.50 lacs vide order dated 23rd June, 2022. As petitioner/s fa
AI
The right of the accused to a fair hearing and the need for substantial compliance with legal requirements.
The duty of the Court to deal with the appeal on merits and the right of the accused to defend himself.
The court established that appellate courts generally must provide reasons for imposing pre-deposit conditions unless justified by exceptional circumstances, reflecting the need to prevent unjust del....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court has the power to dispense with the deposit of a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation amount if an exceptional case i....
The First Appellate Court cannot review its own order without justifiable reasons, and any modification of deposit conditions under Section 148 of the NI Act requires exceptional circumstances.
The modification of conditions for suspension of sentence highlights the principle that accused typically seek relief without conditions, and the court must determine applicability under exceptions.
Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence – Appellate Court has discretion not to order deposit of 20% of amount under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional case....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.