Parminder Singh Saini vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Parminder Singh Saini & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M NO.23394 of 2023, CRM-M NO.23444 of 2023, CR
Decided On : 10-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Power of Appellate Court to order interim deposit pending appeal - The Appellate Court can direct the appellant to deposit 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court when granting bail. (Paras 9-11)

(B) The interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act - The 20% deposit is not an infringement of the appellant's right to appeal as it is meant to expedite justice for the complainant. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 for dishonoring a cheque issued against a liability and was sentenced to pay compensation. The Appellate Court conditioned bail on a 20% deposit of the compensation amount.

Findings of Court:
The direction for a 20% deposit does not violate the right to appeal and serves the purpose of the amended law.

Issues: Whether the imposition of a 20% deposit for bail is legal and whether it infringes the appeal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Appellate Court has the discretion under Section 148 to impose such conditions, balancing the rights of the appellant and the complainant.

Result: Petitions dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on the legality of bail conditions (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis on section 148 of ni act (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. decision affirming the appellate court's discretion (Para 11)
5. conclusion and dismissal of petitions (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of above mentioned four petitions, filed by the petitioner(s) as the common question of law and facts are involved in all the petitions. For the sake of brevity, facts are being culled out from the main petition i.e. CRM-M-23394-2023.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning the order dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, in Criminal Appeal Nos.04 of 2023 in Complaint Case No.NACT/768/08.10.2015 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') whereby the Appellate Court while admitting the petitioner on bail had directed the petitioner to make a payment of 20 % of the compensation amount, as awarded by learned trial Court while convicting the petitioner vide judgement dated 06.12.2022 and sentenced him vide order dated 09.12.2022 as under:-

Sr.No.	Case details	Offence	Sentence
1.	Complaint Case No.NACT/768/08.10.2015	Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. pay compensation 1.5 times of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- and in default thereof, further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Facts

3. In brief, respondent no.2-Jagmal Singh had filed complaint under section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-accused alongwith his father who were in dire need of money had approached the complainant-respondent no.2 on the pretext of selling their immovable property measuring 03 acres for a sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- and deceived by such representation, the complainant-respondent no.2 advanced him Rs.28,00,000/- on assurance that the petitioner shall execute an agreement to sell with his father with respect to the property in question and thereafter, the petitioner refused to execute the agreement to sell on the ground that his father was not ready to sell the property at the aforesaid agreed consideration, therefore, the petitioner promised respondent no.2 to return the advanced money and in order to discharge his liability issued four cheques in question i.e. Cheque No.000045 dated 22.03.2105 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-; Cheque No.000044 dated 20.03.2105 to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-; Cheque No.000048 dated 17.03.2105 to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and Cheque No.000046 dated 24.03.2105 to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. In the instant complaint Cheque bearing No.00045 dated 22.03.2015 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- is in dispute, which was dishonoured with remarks "Insufficient funds" and thereafter, the respondent no.2 sent demand notice through his counsel to the petitioner but he failed to make the due payment within stipulated period of 15 days from the receipt of legal notice. Hence, respondent no.2 filed four different complaints under section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner.

4. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence, held petitioner guilty under section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation i.e. 1.5 times of the Cheque amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- as detailed in para no.2 above, vide judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2022.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of sentence of the trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.04 of 2023 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, and the Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 06.01.2023, while