Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 1441
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 23347 of 2024 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Respondent: G.A.
The amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies retrospectively, but courts must justify deposit conditions without exceptional circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 148 - Application for quashing order imposing condition to deposit 20% compensation - Court held that amended Section 148 is applicable retrospectively, but the lower court failed to justify the imposition of the 20% deposit requirement without considering exceptional circumstances. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized the necessity for the lower court to record reasons when imposing conditions that deviate from standard practices. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to quash an order from the Sessions Judge requiring a 20% deposit of a fine amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the law should not apply retrospectively and that the court failed to consider exceptional circumstances. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court did not provide adequate reasoning for the imposition of the deposit condition and stayed the operation of the order pending further consideration. (Paras 5, 9)
Issues: The main issues were whether the amended Section 148 applies retrospectively and whether the lower court's order was justified without recording reasons for the deposit condition. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the amended Section 148 is indeed retrospective, the lower court must provide justification for imposing a deposit condition, particularly in the absence of exceptional circumstances. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: The condition of depositing 20% of the fine was stayed, and the applicant was required to deposit 10% instead.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for the following relief:
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Session Judge. Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2024 Devender Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) in part to that extant whereby the learned Session Judge imposing the condition "to deposit 20% compensation of the total amount of Rs.05,00,000/- within 7 days". So that justice be done in the case.
It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect of operation of order dated 18.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2024 Devender Kumar Vs. Sate of U.P. & another U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I.Act) in part to that extant whereby the learned Session Judge imposing the condition "to deposit 20% compensation of the total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- within 7 days" pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur, during pendency of instant application before this Hon'ble Court and passed such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fits and proper in the circumstance of the case, otherwise the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury."
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint in question was filed in the year 2016, though appeal was filed in the year 2024. Therefore, Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881') will not be applicable retrospectively. Second contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that while passing the impugned order u/s 148 of the Act, 1881, the court below has failed to record any reason that the case of the applicant does not fall in exceptional category which could persuade the court to make the applicant deposit lesser than 20% of the total fine, despite the fact that the applicant has prayed for complete stay of the impugned conviction order, therefore, impugned order is in violation of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw SC 776. Lastly, it has been submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal.
4. However, learned AGA has submitted that in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in 2019 (11) SCC 341, the Apex Court observed that Section 148 of the Act, 1881 is retrospective in nature, therefore, even if the complaint is filed prior to amendment in Section 148 of the Act, 1881 even then the amended part will apply retrospectively.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission, this court is of the view that it is no more res integra after judgement of the Apex Court that amended in Section 148 of the Act, 1881 will be applicable retrospectively. However, from the perusal of record, it appears that while passing the impugned order dated 18.06.2024, the court below has not recorded the finding that the case of the applicant does not fall within the exceptional category which could persuade the court that the condition of depositing 20% of the fine could be reduced.
6. Matter requires consideration.
7. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
8. List in the week commencing 16.12.2024.
9. Till the next date of listing effect and operation of the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge, Saharanpur shall remain stayed, so far as the condition of depositing 20% of the total fine amount is concerned, subject to the condition that the applicant will deposit 10% of the total fine of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, within a period of 15 days.
