Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anjuli Palo, J.
Suresh Chhabra – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 8708 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Section 482 - Criminal Appeal - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - 148 of the NI Act - Summary: The court discussed the challenge to the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court, which directed the accused to deposit 20% of the amount in question within sixty days as a condition for suspension of sentence. The court referred to the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act and the decision in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, highlighting that the appellate court may order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The court found no exception or special grounds to interfere with the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the direction issued by the lower appellate Court, which imposed a condition for suspension of sentence, requiring the petitioner and co-accused person to pay 20% of the sum within sixty days. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner and co-accused person for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,79,750 to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no exceptional grounds to interfere with the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court, as it was in line with the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act and the decision in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court, the interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act, and the reasonableness of the compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 148 of the NI Act and the decision in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi to uphold the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court, emphasizing that no exception or special grounds were available to interfere with the condition.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed by the court.
ORDER
1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the direction issued in the order dated 30.01.2023 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Appeal No.08.2023 whereby lower appellate Court has directed the petitioner along with co-accused person to pay 20% of the sum i.e. Rs.1,60,79,750/- within a period of sixty days as a condition for suspension of sentence.
2. In this case the trial Court vide judgment dated 26.12.2022, convicted the petitioner and co-accused person for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them for R for 1 year and to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,79,750 - to the complainant.
3. The petitioner along with co-accused filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court wherein an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. The lower appellate Court while deciding the aforesaid application vide impugned order dated 30.01.2023 suspended the sentence imposed on the accused person subject to the condition that in view of Section 148 of the NI Act, the accused persons shall deposit 20% of the amount in question within sixty days.
4. On the question of maintainability, the counsel for the petitioner submits that Office objection is liable to be overruled because the petitioner in this petition has not challenged any judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and right or liability of the parties are not being decided in this case. It is only the condition imposed by the lower appellate Court while granting suspension of sentence is being challenged in this petition. Hence, invocation of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 14.11.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.48528 of 2022 and the order dated 14.10.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41833 of 2019 and contended that similar petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been entertained by this Court.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents as well as decisions relied upon by her.
6. In view of the nature of order which is under challenge and also in view of the fact that this Court has entertained petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., namely, M.Cr.C. No.48528 of 2022 M.Cr.C. No.41833 of 2019 arising out of similar matter, Office objection is ignored and the petition is found to be maintainable.
7. Heard on admission.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the condition imposed vide impugned order, submitted that the petitioner has been erroneously convicted by the trial Court and further that compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. needs to be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary and it should not be more than double of the cheque amount. It is vehemently urged that the lower appellate Court has erred in directing to deposit 20% of amount Rs.1,60,79, 750/- as it is onerous and curtail the liberty of the petitioner. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Somnath Sarkar v. Utpal Basu Mallicks and another, (2013) 16 SCC 465; Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of UP, (CRA No.781 of 2012 decided on 19.03.2015 - SC) and M. Shabeer v. Anitha Bajee (CRL. REV PET No. 624 of 2022 decided on 19.10.2022 by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam). Hence, it is prayed that the said part of the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 should be set aside.
9. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 11 SCC 341 wherein the Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 148 of the NI Act has held that the use of word a'remaya' in Section 148 of the NI Act has to be read as 'shall' and the appellate Courts must ordinary order deposit of minimum 20% of the compensation or fine amount imposed by the trial Court. It is further held that not directing deposit of amount is exception coupled with a
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....
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 upheld the imposition of a 20% pre-deposit condition pending appeal under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing its necessity for expediting resolutions in cheque disho....
The appellate court has the discretion to waive the 20% deposit requirement under Section 148 of the NI Act if justified by exceptional circumstances.
The imposition of a 20% deposit under Section 148 of the N.I. Act is customary but not obligatory; exceptions can be made if justified.
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 appellate court must evaluate if a case is exceptional to waive the mandatory 20% deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
