The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the determination of the nature of the order under this section as interlocutory, influencing the court's decision on the maintainability of the revision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 12.02.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2131 of 2019 and the consequential order, dated 29.04.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2131 of 2019 passed by the learned VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.)

1. By a judgment dated 08.01.2019 in C.C.No.1046 of 2005, the respondent was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and was directed to pay double the amount of cheque under Exs.P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed Crl.A.No.29 of 2019 and while granting suspension of sentence, by an order, dated 12.02.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.2131 of 2019, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai also exercised the powers under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thereby, passed the following order:-

“ 9. Accordingly the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the lower Court alone is hereby suspended till the disposal of the appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-III, Saidapet, Chennai within two weeks from the date of this order and further condition that the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the cheque amount (Rs.3,18,000/-) to the credit of C.C. number on the file of the Trial Court within 60 days from the date of this order.”

3. The complainant is aggrieved by the said order inasmuch as Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lays down that 20% of the compensation/fine amount has to be deposited and in the instant case, while double the cheque amount has been ordered as compensation, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai ordered 15% of the cheque amount alone to be deposited in terms of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. And hence the revision.

4. Heard Mr.Bijesh Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.R.Hari, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr.Bijesh Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal and Ors. Vs. Virender Gandhi and Anr. (2019) 11 SCC 341) , would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that an order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is mandatory and a plain reading of the Section 148 of the Act, it is clear that it is only 20% of the compensation/fine amount and not the cheque amount and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have ordered deposit of a total sum of Rs.8,64,000/-, being 20% of the compensation amount and therefore, he would pray that to that extent, this Court should interfere in the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

6. Per contra, Mr.G.R.Hari, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the said order, under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is interlocutory in nature and therefore, the Revision itself is not maintainable. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel submits that the very same order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is held to be interlocutory in nature and the Revision is held to be not maintainable by the Kerala High Court in the judgment in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2752 of 2009 (Samuel George, Maliyekkal Bunglow Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.). He would further rely upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.126 of 2018 (Udaiyar @ Sattaiudaiyar and Anr. Vs. State), wherein, this Court has held that the order of dismissal of application for suspension of sentence an