Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Mangla Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1228 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Negotiable Instruments Act - Stay of Operation of Impugned Order - Section 138, Section 148 - The judgment discussed the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which allows the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. The court highlighted the purpose of the amendment to provide speedy disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques and emphasized the mandatory nature of the provision. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Trial Court for dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner filed a Statutory Appeal in the Appellate Court and also moved an application for staying the operation of the impugned order and for granting bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court erred in law by rejecting the stay application of the petitioner, which sought to stay the fine imposed by the Trial Court. The court modified the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine within sixty days and allowed the bail to continue till the disposal of the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the Appellate Court's refusal to stay the operation of the impugned order and the requirement for the petitioner to deposit the fine imposed by the Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision and the purpose of the amendment to ensure speedy disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques. The court also relied on relevant case laws to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a modification of the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine within sixty days, allowing the bail to continue till the disposal of the appeal, and stating that failure to deposit the fine would result in automatic cancellation of the bail.
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with as purely legal question is involved in this case, however, learned A.G.A-I for the State has accepted notice on behalf of State-opposite party No.1.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed with following main prayer:-
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the present opp. party no. 2 filed a complaint U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 406/420 I.P.C against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist Faizabad on 25.02.2014 with allegations that complainant was a company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956, which was carrying out the business of manufacturing and sales of Poultry Feed through their unit situated at Plot No. B-1 to B-6 Industrial Area Site No.-1 Post-Haripur Jalalabad, Lucknow Road, P.S-Cantt Distt.-Faizabad (Now Ayodhya). It was further alleged that the present petitioner Mangal Prasad Singh purchased the Poultry Feed with the complainant company as per terms settled between the parties and handed over a cheque bearing number "394990" dated 15.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 300000/- drawn on State Bank of India Babatpur, Varanasi but when the same was presented for clearing by the complainant company in HDFC Bank Ltd. Faizabad, then the same was dishonoured by State Bank of India, Branch Babatpur Varanasi on the ground of insufficient fund. It was also alleged that despite giving notice on 13.01.2014, the accused/petitioner failed to make payment of due amount, thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint U/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 406/420 I.P.C in the Trial Court on 25.02.2014.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner contested the matter before the Trial Court and also filed his written submission on 15.02.2017 in the Trial Court stating therein the true and full facts it was also averred that initially, a Saving Bank account pertaining to the petitioner State Bank of India, Branch-Babatpur Varanasi in respect of which a cheque was issued by the petitioner to the present opp. party no. 2 towards guarantee/security money but when the said account was closed and the petitioner opened new account in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Babatpur Varanasi, then the petitioner made payments to the present opp. party no. 2 from his new account on 14.05.2013 of Rs. 200028/-, on 03.06.2013 of Rs. 40000/-, on 17.07.2013 of Rs. 25000/-, on 19.08.2013 of Rs. 30000/-, on 27.09.2013 of Rs. 25000/-, on 11.11.2013 of Rs. 25000/- on 24.10.2014 of Rs. 35000/-, on 21.04.2014 of Rs. 20000/- & on 03.07.2014 of Rs. 20000/- but the opp. party no. 2 despite having full knowledge of closure of the first account, submitted the previous cheque which was given by the petitioner towards guarantee/security money. Although, the petitioner had issued a cheque towards guarantee/security money from his new account to opp. party no.2 and as such there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Trial Court i.e. First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ayodhya without considering the legal and factual aspects of the matter, illegally a
The amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the appellate court to order a minimum deposit of 20% of the fine during an appeal against conviction under Section 138, ensuring co....
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 appellate court has the power to modify the condition for stay of sentence under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in light of the financial difficulties faced by the appellant.
The aim of Section 148 NI Act is to provide relief to the complainant by empowering the Appellate Court to direct payment of a portion of the fine/compensation during the pendency of appeal. The vaca....
The Appellate Court's power to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as amended in 2018, is mandatory and no....
Point of law: In a given facts of the case, where accused person is facing convictions in 9 complaints and in each of these complaints, accused has faced conviction, wherein fine is separately impose....
Section 148 of the NI Act is retrospective in nature and applies to appeals arising out of complaint cases filed prior to the amendment of 2018.
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
