Mandatory deposit of compensation may follow exception based on circumstances, per N.I. Act.

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition is filed as against order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4940 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.149 of 2024 dated 21.09.2024, by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.

2.The respondent herein is the appellant before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.A.No.149 of 2024. Along with the appeal, the respondent herein/accused has filed petition for suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P.No.4940 of 2024. The lower appellate Court, vide order dated 21.09.2024 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the respondent herein/accused without directing him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 [ for short 'N.I.Act'].

Hence, the petitioner herein/complainant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant submitted that, under Section 148 of N.I.Act, deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is a mandatory condition. However, the learned Sessions Judge, failed to consider the well proven material evidence, and mechanically suspended the sentence imposed on the accused without imposing the condition for depositing 20% of compensation amount.

Learned counsel further submitted that, for not imposing condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount, the lower appellate Court ought to have assigned the reasons.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 has clarified the expressions used in Section 148 of N.I.Act and has stated that the appellate Court, in appropriate cases, which is exceptional in nature, can suspend the sentence without imposing condition. In the case on hand, the lower appellate Court, after perusing the entire records, found some exceptional circumstances that, as the respondent/accused had already paid substantial amount to the petitioner/complainant and a civil suit is also pending between the parties and that the accused also is in a poor condition, suspended the sentence without imposing the condition for depositing 20% of the compensation amount.

7. This Court, on perusing the records, finds that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was instituted in the year 2022. The trial Court convicted the respondent herein, vide judgment dated 27.06.2024. The appeal was instituted in the year 2024. Petition for suspension of sentence was disposed on 21.09.2024 without the condition as stated above. Challenging the said order, after eight months, the petitioner/complainant has come up with the present petition. The petitioner ought to have made a request before the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the appeal itself, instead, he has filed the present petition. Since the learned Sessions Judge, while suspending the sentence, had given valid reasons for not directing the accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Hence, this Court does not find any abuse of process of law.

8. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

However, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal in Crl.A.No.149 of 2024, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.