Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Seema Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Singla - Respondent
CRM-M-38774-2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Section 148 - Criminal Appeal No. 917-944 of 2019 - Surender Singh Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi - M/s Ginni Garments Versus M/s Sethi Garments - [Section 148 of the Act of 1881] - The judgment discusses the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 917-944 of 2019 titled as Surender Singh Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Ginni Garments Versus M/s Sethi Garments. It interprets the power of the Appellate Court to direct the appellant/convict to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine/compensation awarded by the trial Court, the applicability of the amendment in Section 148 of the Act of 1881, and the non-obstante clause. The judgment also discusses the procedural nature of Section 148 and its impact on the substantive right of the accused, and the power of the Appellate Court to seek the deposit from multiple accused/appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner and another individual. Both were held guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and to pay double the amount of the cheque. An application was filed for directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation in view of the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the subsequent application seeking deposit was not maintainable and that the amount of compensation would be payable only if the order attains finality after the decision of the appeal/revision. The petitioner also argued that both accused could not have been separately asked to deposit 20% of the compensation each.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order was held to be legal and valid, and the petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the order, stating that the Appellate Court has the power to direct the appellant/convict to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine/compensation awarded by the trial Court, and that the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881 were applicable. The Court also rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the review of the order, the payment of compensation, and the deposit requirement for multiple accused/appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the subsequent application seeking deposit, the payment of compensation, and the requirement for multiple accused/appellants to deposit 20% of the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Act of 1881, the procedural nature of Section 148, and its impact on the substantive right of the accused. It also clarified the power of the Appellate Court to seek the deposit from multiple accused/appellants.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of Order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in CRA-556-2017 titled as Seema Gupta Vs. Vijay, vide which the present Petitioner who has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 1881”) has been directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days, in view of the amended provisions of Section 148 of the 1881 Act and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 917-944 of 2019, decided on 29.05.2019 titled as “Surinder Singh Deswal and others versus Virender Gandhi”.
The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the present petitioner namely Seema Gupta and one Chander Parkash Gupta, who has also independently filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, the present petitioner and Chander Parkash Gupta were held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and on 11.10.2017, both the convicts were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay double the amount of the cheque. The compensation, thus, awarded was to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
Two separate appeals were filed against the said judgment of conviction, one by the present petitioner and the other by Chander Parkash Gupta. On 07.11.2017, the sentence of the present petitioner was suspended.
Thereafter, on 28.09.2018, an application was filed by the complainant for directing the present petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation in view of the amendment in the Act of 1881. In the said application, it was stated that the present petitioner has not deposited any money before the Court. A reply was filed by the Petitioner to the said application and vide impugned order dated 22.07.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, keeping in view the Amended Act No.20 of 2018 with respect to Section 148 of the Act of 1881 and also in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.917-944 of 2019 decided on 29.05.2019 titled as Surender Singh Deswal and others Versus Virender Gandhi and also the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Ginni Garments Versus M/s Sethi Garments, CRR-9872-2018, decided on 04.04.2019, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since in the present case, vide order dated 07.11.2017, the sentence of the petitioner had already been suspended till the decision of the appeal and the petitioner was admitted on bail on her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court and the requisite bail bonds were furnished, accepted and attested, thus, the subsequent application moved on 28.09.2018 seeking deposit of 20% amount of the compensation was not maintainable and in fact, the same would amount to a review of the earlier order passed on 07.11.2017.
The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, at the time of sentencing the petitioner on 11.10.2017, it had been observed that the amount of compensation would be payable to the complainant in case that order attains finality after the decision of the appeal/revision, if any. Reference has been made to para 4 of the order dated 11.10.2017. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“In the interest of justice, the convicts are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.One Crore, Fifty lakh (Rs.1,50,00,000/-) to the complainant, as the complainant has not only suffered loss due to the ac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
