IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
D. Chandrasekar - Appellant
Versus
TamilNadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 11435 & 19569 of 2021 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 6641 & 10618 of 2021
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Compensation Amount - Section 138 - 357(3) of Cr.P.C - 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act - [Section 138, 357(3) of Cr.P.C, 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the purposive interpretation of the amended section. The judgment clarified that the amended section shall be applicable in appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even in cases where the criminal complaints were filed prior to the amendment Act 20 of 2018, i.e., prior to 01.09.2018. The court upheld the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, considering the amendment under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed appeals and petitions challenging the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court regarding the deposit of compensation amount and suspension of sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts and dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the direction to deposit compensation amount, and the suspension of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is the applicability of the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138, even in cases where the criminal complaints were filed prior to the amendment Act 20 of 2018.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.11435 of 2021: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17503 of 2019 in C.A.No.506 of 2018.
In Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2021: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021 in C.A.No.506 of 2018.)
Common Order:
1. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.11435 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17503 of 2019 in C.A.No.506 of 2018, thereby directed the petitioner herein to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court, within a period of 60 days.
2. The Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2021 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021 in C.A.No.506 of 2018, thereby allowed the petitioner to vacate the interim order of suspension of sentence passed in Crl.M.P.No.16156 of 2018, dated 24.09.2018.
3. The petitioner is an accused. The complaint lodged by the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.15108 of 2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-II, Egmore. The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year. Further directed the petitioner to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.3,53,69,576/- as provided under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.506 of 2018 and also filed a petition for suspension of sentence. The sentence alone was suspended by the Appellate Court in Crl.M.P.No.16156 of 2018 by an order dated 24.09.2018. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking direction directing the petitioner herein to deposit the compensation amount ordered by the Trial Court and also permit the respondent herein to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner herein. The Appellate Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the Trial court, within a period of 60 days.
5. However, the petitioner herein failed to comply with the said direction and as such the petitioner herein again filed another application in Crl.M.P.No.226 of 2021, to cancel the suspension of sentence on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to comply the direction issued by the Appellate Court under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said petition was allowed and cancelled the suspension of sentence granted to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed an appeal as against the conviction along with condone delay petition. The first Appellate Court, while allowing the condone delay petition, imposed condition to deposit 5% of compensation amount as condition and the same was challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21709 of 2018 and the condition imposed by the first Appellate Court was modified to the effect that the petitioner shall deposit 2% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court. The petitioner duly complied with the said condition and thereafter the delay was condoned. He further submitted that while filing an appeal, there was no amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act by enacting Section 148A of Negotiable Instruments Act. It came to effect from 01.09.2018 with regard to amendment of Act 20 of 2018. Further, it is also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Surinder Sigh Deswal @ Col.S.S.Deswal and ors
The key legal principle established is the applicability of the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective applicability of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the mandatory nature of the Appellate Court's discretion to direc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, as per the pro....
Mandatory deposit of compensation may follow exception based on circumstances, per N.I. Act.
Conditions for suspension of sentence must be justified with recorded reasons, especially in exceptional cases, as per the interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act.
The court established the interpretation of Section 148 and 143-A of the NI Act in the context of suspending the sentence and imposing conditions on the appellant/convict.
The court emphasized that mandatory deposit provisions under Section 148 may hinder access to justice, directing prompt appeals hearings for those unable to comply due to financial constraints.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons for exercising its discretion when ordering payment pending appeal against conviction ....
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.