Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Atul Goel & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vaibhav Jain - Respondent
CRM-M-30016 of 2021 and CRM-M-30654 of 2021
Decided On : 13-01-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act - Appellate Court Jurisdiction - Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned orders dated 11.02.2021 and the impugned order of even date passed by the appellate court. The appellate court had directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court as a pre-condition to considering the appeal on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contention that the order of the appellate court was harsh and deserved to be set aside. It held that the appellate court was within its jurisdiction to direct such deposit, especially in view of the circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate court's order directing the deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court was justified under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal alias Col. S.S.Deswal and others vs. Varinder Gandhi, 2020 (1) RCR (Crl.) 604, which upheld the validity of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, introduced via an amendment on 01.09.2018.
Final Decision: The court directed that the deposit of 20% of the amount shall remain in abeyance only if the appeal is argued on behalf of the appellant before the appellate court. If not argued, the impugned order would come into effect immediately.
JUDGMENT
Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) - Case heard by video conferencing.
2. By these petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned appellate court in CRA no.342 of 2019, as also the impugned order of even date passed by the same court in CRA no.340 of 2019.
3. Notice of motion having been issued by this court (by a co- ordinate Bench) on 03.08.2021, the trial court (actually the appellate court) had been directed to adjourn the matter to a date beyond that fixed by this court at that stage.
Thereafter the interim order having continued, on 24.11.2021 the following order was passed by this court:-
' By these petitions, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure P- 3), passed by the learned appellate court in CRA no.342 of 2019, as also the impugned order of even date passed by the same court in CRA no.340 of 2019.
The petitioner also seeks staying operation of the aforesaid orders.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced in court today an order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.10.2021, in SLP (Crl.) No.7745 of 2021, by which operation of the order passed by this court, dated 23.07.2021, is shown to be stayed, that order having been passed in CRM-M-19462- 2021, titled as 'Satbir Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another'.
4. Vide that order of this court, on the touchstone of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surender Singh Deswal alias Col. S.S.Deswal and others vs. Varinder Gandhi, 2020 (1) RCR (Crl.) 604, the petition filed by the petitioners in that case, had been dismissed.
5. This court (co-ordinate bench), while doing so, had rejected the contention of the petitioners in that petition, to the effect that the order of the learned appellate court directing 20% of the amount of compensation ordered by the trial court be deposited as a pre-condition to considering the appeal on merits, was a very harsh order and therefore, it deserves to be set aside.
6. This court noticed that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had been introduced vide an amendment made on 01.09.2018, stipulating that an appellate court may order the appellant to deposit a sum of at least 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court, with the challenge made to the amendment having been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswals' case (supra).
7. Consequently, counsel for the petitioner in these two petitions would be required to address arguments in terms of the ratio of the judgment in Surinder Singh Deswals' case (supra), because an order passed by the Supreme Court staying operation of an order or judgment of this court, in my opinion would not overrule a judgment laying down ratio on any particular issue, with a simple order staying operation of any particular judgment/order of this court, also possibly having been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, by the Supreme Court.
Adjourned to 05.01.2022.
8. To be shown in the urgent motion list. (A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.)' Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has again pointed out that in fact the appeals having come up for hearing for the first time before the appellate court on 22.08.2019, with the sentence imposed by the trial court on the present petitioner having been suspended, thereafter the impugned order, dated 13.07.2021, was passed, which reads as follows:-
'An application for exemption from personal appearance of accused Atul Goel moved. Heard. Due to circumstances explained in the application, presence of accused is exempted for today only.
Lower court record not received. Arguments not advanced.
Adjournment requested. Now to come up on 04.08.2021 for payment of 20% amount as well as arguments on appeal.
Lower court record shall be also summoned for the date fixed.'
9. Very obviously the said order was passed almost t
The mandatory nature of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the purpose of the amendment to provide speedy disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques.
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 ....
The appellate court must evaluate if a case is exceptional to waive the mandatory 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Section 148 of N.I. Act delineates Power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction.
The Appellate Court must consider exceptional circumstances when imposing a deposit requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring specific reasons for its decision.
The appellate court has discretion under Section 148 of the NI Act to impose a deposit condition, but must consider exceptions and provide reasons when waiving such conditions.
The appellate court has the discretion to waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if justified by exceptional circumstances.
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
