Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 784
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Mangla Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1228 of 2024 at Lucknow
Petitioner: Lal Bahadur Khan
Respondent: G.A.
The Appellate Court must grant interim relief upon admitting an appeal, and failure to stay the Trial Court's order can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 148 - Writ petition challenging the Appellate Court's order declining to stay the operation of the Trial Court's conviction order - The Appellate Court failed to consider statutory provisions under Section 148, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 10, 19, 24)
(B) Legal principles - The Appellate Court must grant interim relief upon admitting an appeal, and the rejection of a stay application can have serious consequences for the appellant. (Paras 12, 20)
(C) Findings of Court - The petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the fine imposed by the Trial Court within sixty days, and bail shall continue until the appeal is disposed of. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 for issuing a dishonored cheque and sentenced to three months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4,00,000. The Appellate Court admitted the appeal but rejected the stay application.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court's order was modified to require the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine within sixty days, with bail continuing until the appeal's resolution.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court erred in not granting a stay on the Trial Court's order upon admitting the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Appellate Court must consider statutory provisions and grant interim relief to prevent injustice during the appeal process.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
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:-
- "1. Issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024 (Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. Shanti Roller Mills Ltd. to the extent by which the learned Appellate Court despite admitting the appeal has declined to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court and thereby has rejected the stay application (Paper No. 5-B) as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition."
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 2 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 3 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, i
