IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
GIRISHBHAI DURLABHBHAI AMIPARA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (Modification of Order) No. 945 of 2024, Criminal Revision Application No. 949 of 2024
Decided On : 25-07-2024
Compensation - Criminal Appeals - NI Act Section 148, 143A - The court interpreted the discretionary nature of Section 148 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the appellate court is not mandated to impose a 20% deposit of compensation unless justified by exceptional circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants challenged an order requiring them to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in their criminal appeals, arguing that the order was unjust and would lead to their incarceration despite disputed facts regarding the cheque.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court had not adequately justified the imposition of the 20% deposit condition, failing to consider the merits of the case and the financial distress of the applicants.
Issues: Whether the appellate court was required to impose a 20% deposit of the compensation amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, and if such a condition was justified in the context of the case's facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of 'may' in Section 148 indicates discretion, and the appellate court must consider the specifics of each case before imposing a deposit condition.
Result: The condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was cancelled.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Krina Calla and learned advocate Mr. Yogeshkumar A. Ratanpara, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective parties. Rule is fixed forthwith.
2. By way of the above Revision Applications, the applicant-revisionists have challenged the orders dated 15.05.2024 passed below Exhibit-5 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5 of 2024 and 4 of 2024 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visavadar and further prayer was made to modify the condition no. 1 imposed in Exh.5 application in both the matters.
3. Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant, referring to the judgment of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2023) 10 SCC 446, submitted that the learned Judge was required to consider the facts of the matter prior to passing any order against the applicants-accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that in view of proposition laid in the referred judgment, such an order would even frustrate the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted. The inability to deposit the amount would lend the applicants-appellants in jail. More so, when the applicants as an appellants have urged about the disputed facts, where the cheques were urged to have been lost and the signatures thereupon were 8 years old. The application was moved often for an expert opinion for F.S.L.
3.2 Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that there was no legal dues payable and the Bank Account was closed and case was urged of misuse of the cheque.
4. Countering the arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Yogeshkumar A. Ratanpara for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the facts of the case have already been agitated before the trial Court, and it was only after recording of evidence and appreciation, the judgment followed, and therefore the same issue cannot be agitated before the appellate Court for any special concession in the matter.
5. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. In the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 341 was taken into consideration, wherein observations were referred to. Paragraph-8 of the decision in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal (supra) reads as under:
Therefore amended Section 148 of the NI Act confers power upon the appellate court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application file by the appellant-accused under Section 389 CrPC to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended Section 148 of the NI Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date o
Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Others
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand and Another
Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi and Another
The appellate court has discretion under Section 148 of the NI Act to impose a deposit condition, which is not mandatory and must be justified based on case specifics.
The court clarified that the appellate court has discretion under Section 148 of the N.I. Act to waive the 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases, emphasizing the need for recorded reasons.
Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence – Imposition of condition by first appellate court to deposit 20% of compensation amount awarded is valid.
The court established that conditions for suspension of sentence must be justified with reasons, considering the accused's financial situation and prior payments.
The appellate court can waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if compelling circumstances are demonstrated.
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....
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.