THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Maga Sakter, Son of Late Maga Ter – Petitioner
Versus
Biki Tamo, Son of Shri Biki Talang – Respondent
Crl. Rev.P. No.22 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 148 - Criminal revision petition against conviction for dishonor of cheque - Petitioner convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- and undergo simple imprisonment for one year in default - Appellate Court directed deposit of 20% of fine amount, which was not complied with - Court observed that it lacks jurisdiction to extend time granted by the High Court for payment - Criminal revision petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 16)
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. Sumit Chhetri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner, assailing an order, dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in IA(Crl.) No. 306/2024.
3. The sole respondent, herein, had instituted the proceeding against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Papum Pare District, Yupia, vide judgment & order, dated 23.03.2023, proceeded on consideration of the issue so arising therein, to hold that the petitioner, herein, is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, herein, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- for the loss and damage sustained by the respondent, herein, due to non-payment of the cheque amount. It was further directed in the said order that the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a year in default of payment of fine.
5. It is seen that being aggrieved by the said judgment & order, dated 23. 03.2023; the petitioner, herein, had instituted Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, vide order, dated 26.06.2023, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023, directed the petitioner, herein, to deposit 20% of the fine amount. However, the said amount not being so deposited; the learned appellate Court had vide order, dated 04.08.2023, granted further one week time to the petitioner, herein, for depositing 20% of the fine amount.
7. The matter was, thereafter, taken-up for consideration on 11.08.2023, and on the said date; the petitioner, herein, being personally present before the Court, had expressed his inability to deposit the 20% of the fine amount so awarded. Accordingly, the appellate Court, vide order, dated 11.08.2023, proceeded to dismiss the said appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023.
8. Being aggrieved; the petitioner, herein, had instituted the Criminal Revision Petition being Crl.Revn.P. 32/2023, before this Court. This Court, vide order, dated 27.06.2024, on consideration of the issue arising in the matter, was pleased to dispose of the said criminal revision petition, by interfering with the order, dated 11.08.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023, and remanded back the matter to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia.
9. In the said order, dated 27.06.2024; undertaking of the learned counsel was recorded that the petitioner, herein, be granted 3(three) months’ time to deposit the 20% of the awarded fine amount before the learned appellate Court. This Court while permitting the petitioner, herein, to deposit the fine amount within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the said order, dated 27.06.2024, further provided that in the event; the petitioner, herein, failed to deposit the 20% of the awarded fine amount, quoted-above; the learned appellate Court shall be at liberty to pass necessary order as per law. Thereafter, in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dated 27.06.2024; the appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023 stood revived.
10. The petitioner, herein, had instituted IA(Crl.)306/2024 in Crl. Appeal No. 02/2023, praying for grant of further time to him, to deposit the 20% of the awarded fine amount. The said interlocutory application was taken-up for consideration by the appellate Court and vide order, dated 12.11.2024, had recorded the following conclusions:
The court ruled that failure to comply with the appellate court's order to deposit 20% of the fine amount justifies dismissal of the revision petition.
Point of law: Condition of depositing 50% of the amount of fine was imposed in bail during appeal, so the appeal itself cannot be dismissed on this ground.
Provisions of Section 143A of the N.I. Act are not applicable retrospectively, thus cannot impose obligations for cases predating its enactment.
The court set conditions on a revision against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, allowing for potential compliance to avoid imprisonment.
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 impose a 20% deposit requirement from a convicted party, but exceptions may apply under specific and justified circumstances.
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.